For quite sometime, I have studied the effects of heretical doctrines and the role they’ve played in the shaping of the various church systems we see today. I have concluded that as the writer of the Ecclesiastes stated “The thing that hath been, it [is that] which shall be; and that which is done that which shall be done: and no new thing under the sun.” Understanding this small passage I have found no new conceptual interpretation of the Deitism of Jesus Christ that has not been reconstituted, over and over again incorrectly. Either intentionally or in honest discernment, many people throughout history have been victims of incorrect doctrinal practices that have led them to “questionable ends”. I believe the lord is grieved distinctively and wishes to clarify the Gospel of the church.

 

The established Gospel was originally brought to the descendants of Abraham in relation to the promise God established with the sons of Noah, Shem and Japeth and even Canaan to some extent. It was Abraham who looked for the promise in his generation as noted in the book of Hermas, and in the letters of Irenaeous in his treatise to Marcion, a proprietor of the Marcionite heresy.

 

Let us begin to explore just what is a Heresy. When one denotes a particular belief as a heretical doctrine in these days, it stirs up an understanding that those practicing the fore mentioned doctrine are in some way evil, vile and repulsive creatures fit for hell and damnation. But it is actually an established position of contrary belief to the original and proposed belief of a particular religion. There are heresies in Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Judaism.  Heresy as follows”… has no purely objective meaning: the category exists only from the point-of-view of a position within a sect that has been previously defined as "orthodox””, Orthodox is defined as “straight-thinking”. It is also noteworthy to mention that a person, by the merits of kath-holic beliefs, can only commit heresy if they are baptized. 

 

In Christianity, which is our chief religious belief in the world today, we have the established historical Church in the form of “Catholicism” or “World church”. This world church has its historical roots in the preaching and teaching of the apostles and the disciples of these apostles, in how they drew upon the teaching, and life of Jesus Christ, also “who” they believed him to be based upon loose translations of apostolic characterizations. The apostles while being Jews themselves, having great insight into the Old Testament scriptures, and the customs established within it, knew full well, who Jesus claimed to be, the Messiah, or GOD WITH US, Emmanuel. The problem was how god applied himself with us. This was not clarified to any one mans acceptance. So the gentile churches who had more of a kinship with “gods mingling with humans” drew upon they’re own perspectives of how this could have been accomplished.

 

We have a mixture in the early church of Judean Christians, and it’s traditional understanding of GOD, Yahweh, and his interactions with they’re forefathers and Grecian philosophical beliefs struggling to comprehend this phenomenon both vying for a singular truth. Since there were already in the world outside Jewish belief, many concepts of Gods, and chief gods, it was naturally difficult for individuals to absorb the true interpretation of the Old Testament scriptures. Even many Jews had a difficult time with them, And with very few literal translations available, the early churches established were left with pastors, established by the apostles or their disciples, who had very little to refer back to in regards to written doctrinal standards of belief. So, as the congregations grew larger, so to the “opposition” to the belief structure.

While the apostles did all they could to stem the tide of confusion within the church they had begun, it was the disciples of the disciples that eventually began to create doubts in the minds of the church. Many doctors, teachers and men of high caliber began to examine this new Christianity and develop from it their interpretations of the core belief structure, Thus, prompting the disciples in the various regions of the area of Palestine, North Africa, Saudi Arabia and such to consolidate the messages into literary books that could be followed and adhered to. I want to go into the beliefs that coagulated the church into a mass of believers that coherently established a certain truth on the gospel.

 

The first problem the new church faced even during the time of the apostles where, by accounts of the Kath-olic church were:

The Circumcisers

The Circumcision heresy may be summed up in the words of Acts 15:1: "But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’"

Many of the early Christians were Jews, who brought to the Christian faith many of their former practices. In conversion, they recognized in Jesus the Messiah predicted by the prophets and the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Because circumcision had been required in the Old Testament for membership in God’s covenant, many thought it would also be required for membership in the New Covenant that Christ had come to inaugurate. They believed one must be circumcised and keep the Mosaic law to come to Christ. In other words, one had to become a Jew to become a Christian.

**But God made it clear to Peter in Acts 10 that Gentiles are acceptable to God and may be baptized and become an adoptee of the law without circumcision. The same teaching was vigorously defended by Paul in his epistles to the Romans and the Galatians—to areas where the Circumcision heresy had spread.**

(An adoptee of the law)

Next we have an awesome new heretical belief structure that threatened to wipe conventional truth out of the box, and that is the belief of Gnosticism.

 

Gnosticism

Matter is evil!" was the cry of the Gnostics. This idea was borrowed from certain Greek philosophers. It stood against earlier Christian teaching, not only because it contradicts Genesis 1:31 ("And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good") and other scriptures, but because it denies the Incarnation. If matter is evil, then Jesus Christ could not be true God and true man, for Christ is in no way evil. Thus many Gnostics denied the Incarnation, claiming that Christ only appeared to be a man, but that his humanity was an illusion. Some Gnostics, recognizing that the Old Testament taught that God created matter, claimed that the God of the Jews was an evil deity who was distinct from the New Testament God of Jesus Christ. They also proposed belief in many divine beings, known as "aeons," who mediated between man and the ultimate, unreachable God. The lowest of these aeons, the one who had contact with men, was supposed to be Jesus Christ.

While on it’s own merit, this belief is far fetched at most, it was a very prevalent belief because it allowed a certain level of liberty in ones life, and left the business of holiness completely up to the will of god to decide. Elements of this belief structure can be found today in many forms of new doctrines that do not cite a certain level of adherence to a practice or ritualistic belief. That is to say, one can be saved simply by realizing that while you are in the flesh you will sin, and are unable to change that path, but when you shed the nature of the flesh, you are then made whole by the love of god, that will immediately reconcile your sins. Gnosticism can be summed up as a belief in human salvation attained more so in death rather than in life. While the church maintained that salvation was obtained in life, and in the death of the flesh is realized more clearly.

 

Next we have,

Montanism

Montanus began his career preaching a return to penance and fervor. His movement also emphasized the continuance of miraculous gifts, such as speaking in tongues and prophecy. However, he also claimed that his teachings were above those of the Church, and soon he began to teach Christ’s imminent return in his home town in Phrygia (millennialism). There were also statements that Montanus himself either was, or at least specially spoke for, the Paraclete that Jesus had promised would come (in reality, the Holy Spirit). One of the things I noticed was that many Pentecostal leaders state that they also speak on behalf of the lord, versus what many non-pentecostal churches state as an inspirational literal message, attained through study or attained knowledge.

  

Clarity, A belief structure of Montanus was not one that was outright wrong, it was the application and the accusation the practices placed on the catholic churches at the time. The followers believed whole heartedly in the same principles as the Pentecostal movements of today believe in, however the level of aestheticism was much greater then than now, but that same condemnations by the two are still placed in stark contrast to the existing catholic and fundamental churches. One will find that the restrictions the Montanists placed on themselves is in fact in resemblance to the earlier churches began by the apostles, but also an over zealousness in their application to the church. It’s the condemnation of others that causes the rebuffing of the practice.

 

Next

 Sabellianism

The Sabellianists taught that Jesus Christ and God the Father were not distinct persons, but two aspects or offices of one person. According to them, the three persons of the Trinity exist only in God’s relation to man, not in objective reality

Considered a heresy because, it greatly contradicted the established belief of the Catholic church. If God acted in accordance to the words of the old and new testaments in this manner it would tend to invalidate the established doctrine of trinity. And the Trinitarian doctrine was already established centuries prior to Sabellious as the official language of belief. It is the source of Modalism.

 

Thus far we can see that the formation of the church is being influenced by many different forms of truth and incorrectness thus thrusting a shaping of the gospel into light. We see that A Judean form of worship, while it has it’s merit, it is the base of gospel for the gentile church, but is not practical practice in its administration unto salvation, we see the various beliefs in gnosticism as men grapple with trying to understand the Christ phenomenon.   We see the Holy ghost recognized in men, teaching and prophesying to no end, as stark beliefs in how the holy ghost is to be obtained and is administered unto the members of the church. We also see a contrary, very noteworthy, point to the established practice of the gospel in the challenge to trinity in Sabellianism.

Continuing forward

Arianism

Arius taught that Christ was a creature made by God. By disguising his heresy using orthodox or near-orthodox terminology, he was able to sow great confusion in the Church. He was able to muster the support of many bishops, while others excommunicated him.

Arianism was solemnly condemned in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea, which defined the divinity of Christ, and in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople, which defined the divinity of the Holy Spirit. These two councils gave us the Nicene creed, which Catholics recite at Mass every Sunday.  

 

** Arianism was indeed very confusing and while it mimicked established gospel the main difference was that the immaculate birth did not occur as it did. And like the gnostical doctrines of prior centuries, the concept that Jesus was made divine at his baptism or sometime later rather than in birth, the first redundant belief.

 Pelagianism

Pelagius denied that we inherit original sin from Adam’s sin in the Garden and claimed that we become sinful only through the bad example of the sinful community into which we are born. This was a direct contradiction to the upheld Gnostic integration that “all matter is evil” concept which was allowed to develop in the church through certain acceptance of Gnostic doctrine. Since many early church fathers were at one time Gnostic themselves, it was seen as a direct contradiction to those early church establishers who developed the doctrine of the church. Conversely, he denied that we inherit righteousness as a result of Christ’s death on the cross and said that we become personally righteous by instruction and imitation in the Christian community, following the example of Christ. Pelagius stated that man is born morally neutral and can achieve heaven under his own powers. According to him, God’s grace is not truly necessary, but merely makes easier an otherwise difficult task.

*Every man has the ability to determine his or her own destiny by the choices they make in life. By living a good life one can obtain salvation even without the process established by the church.  This opened the door for pagans who were grafted into the roman army to receive rights and acknowledgments of service including recognition by the church.

 Semi-Pelagianism

After Augustine refuted the teachings of Pelagius, some tried a modified version of his system. This, too, ended in heresy by claiming that humans can reach out to God under their own power, without God’s grace; that once a person has entered a state of grace, one can retain it through one’s efforts, without further grace from God; and that natural human effort alone can give one some claim to receiving grace, though not strictly merit it.

*This takes god out of the equation and places man as the sole ruler of his own fate, while recognizing that God has the power to grant a person grace initially, it can be retained without gods intervention.

This is the first step into moving away from the restrictive nature of the churches teachings. That each member is under subjection to a papal figure and  doctrine directed to them not completely for them.

Nestorianism

This heresy about the person of Christ was initiated by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who denied Mary the title of Theotokos (Greek: "God-bearer" or, less literally, "Mother of God"). Nestorius claimed that she only bore Christ’s human nature in her womb, and proposed the alternative title Christotokos ("Christ-bearer" or "Mother of Christ").

Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Nestorius’s theory would fracture Christ into two separate persons (one human and one divine, joined in a sort of loose unity), only one of whom was in her womb. The Church reacted in 431 with the Council of Ephesus, defining that Mary can be properly referred to as the Mother of God, not in the sense that she is older than God or the source of God, but in the sense that the person she carried in her womb was, in fact, God incarnate ("in the flesh").

There is some doubt whether Nestorius himself held the heresy his statements imply.

 

* While I agree with Nestorius in the concept that Mary was the vessel alone in which God exacted his prophecy, Mary was simply the person assigned to care for the infant stage of god in the flesh. Does she deserve a special place in the communal role of the kingdom? No more so than anyone else who obeys the spirit of god, for even though she carried Jesus in her womb that alone did not solidify her salvation. She along with the apostles had to receive the holy ghost on the day of Penticost.

 Monophysitism

Monophysitism originated as a reaction to Nestorianism. The Monophysites (led by a man named Eutyches) were horrified by Nestorius’s implication that Christ was two people with two different natures (human and divine). They went to the other extreme, claiming that Christ was one person with only one nature (a fusion of human and divine elements). They are thus known as Monophysites because of their claim that Christ had only one nature (Greek: mono = one; physis = nature).

Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Monophysitism was as bad as Nestorianism because it denied Christ’s full humanity and full divinity. If Christ did not have a fully human nature, then he would not be fully human, and if he did not have a fully divine nature then he was not fully divine.

 

Now from what I can gather, and keep in track, the main gist of so many different doctrinal perspectives lies on one thought…who was Jesus Christ. Was he Fully MAN, being SON of MAN or fully divine as the SON of GOD?

Clarifying the two poles, one must be aware, that the nature of the being is in question not the specific office of the being, that is define by the nature of the created being, so Sense Jesus considered himself both, SON of MAN and Son of God it is safer to say, he was Flesh, sinful and Holy, Sinless. The animal sacrifices were created in the same manner so to speak. They are sinless because they perform the word of god in their actions constantly, and sinful because of the sin of the flesh, all flesh. Most people never really wonder about the nature of animals to god, but there is a reason for animal sacrifice. And a reason why, pagan, animal sacrifices are reviled by god.  

 

Curcumsirers = Jesus was the messiah (god with man, divine) in this interpretation one surmises that Jesus was GOD wrapped in flesh. Being both sinful, and sinless.

 

Gnosticism = Jesus was simply MAN, born sinful and made divine either at his baptism or sometime thereafter. Since all flesh is sinful, nothing born from man can be divine but must be inspired through knowledge or some other means approved by the divine entity greater than the man himself. As this is the base of Trinitarian thought, Jesus Christ was a man who was made divine through the practice of Gnostic ritualistic baptism. Shown his approval by god in the form of the dove or sprit which ascending from heaven to alit upon him at his baptism. Therefore, Jesus cannot be god himself but an approved messenger of god himself.

Montanism = That Jesus was God, as the apostles stated, and that the PARACLETE (Holy ghost) was the most important agent to man in the salvation process.

Differences between the catholic church and montanism:

• The belief that the prophecies of the Montanists superseded and fulfilled the doctrines proclaimed by the Apostles.

• The encouragement of ecstatic prophesying and speaking in tongues, contrasting with the more sober and disciplined approach to theology dominant in mainstream Catholicism at the time and since.

• The view that Christians who fell from grace could not be redeemed, also in contrast to the Catholic view that contrition could lead to a sinner's restoration to the church.

• The prophets of Montanism did not speak as messengers of God: "Thus saith the Lord," but rather described themselves as possessed by God, and spoke in his person. "I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete," said Montanus (Didymus, De Trinitate, III, xli); This possession by a spirit, which spoke while the prophet was incapable of resisting, is described by the spirit of Montanus: "Behold the man is like a lyre, and I dart like the plectrum. The man sleeps, and I am awake" (Epiphanius, "Hæreses", xlviii, 4).

• A stronger emphasis on the avoidance of sin, church discipline, and apocalyptic living than in mainstream Catholicism. They emphasized chastity, including forbidding remarriage. They practiced extreme ascetecism and abhorred the catholic priests for their debauchery lifestyle.

   

Sabellianism = Jesus and God were not two separate persona’s but one singular persona. But in relation to salvation they exist in three persons but not in complete objectivity. belief that the three persons of the Trinity are merely different modes or aspects of God, rather than three distinct persons.

 

Arianism = Jesus was made by God, not that he was god, but that he was a separate entity all together, both divine and human.

 

Pelagianism = Jesus was born both divine and man, but that mere men are born neutral with the ability to define their own destiny of righteousness or unrighteousness by virtue of their works. This will allow for the spreading of the gospel among pagans who performed the will of the empire justly being able to obtain salvation even without repentance.

 

Semi-Pelagianism = Humans can of their own desire, reach out to god, and once obtained, can keep it through their own works without grace from god.

 

Nestorianism = Denied Mary mother of Jesus and exclaimed role somewhat on par of holy queen, and that she was only a vessel used by god to be carried within. So they believed that JESUS was God incarnate. But that Jesus and God were two separate people, one human and one divine.

 

Monophysitism = Held to the belief that Jesus was only one being, both human and divine, both man and God himself in the flesh.

 

Even as I have up to now comprised they’re chief heretical doctrines thus far they denote major upheavals in the propogation of the gospel of Christ. Many of the disparities are based on philosophical differences or inter-cultural practices amongst the church. As we continue, I would like to note that we are moving further away from the root gospel of the original disciples and apostles and into more state kingdom like business of the catholic church.

 Iconoclasm (7th and 8th Centuries)

This heresy arose when a group of people known as iconoclasts (literally, "icon smashers") appeared, who claimed that it was sinful to make pictures and statues of Christ and the saints, despite the proposed belief’s in the Biblical passages wherin God had commanded the making of religious statues (Ex. 25:18–20; 1 Chr. 28:18–19), including symbolic representations of Christ (cf. Num. 21:8–9 with John 3:14). This definition comes from the catholic churches protective belief in holding ICON’s as instruments of praise and worship.

 

In actuality the creation of ICONS as forms of worship is not a practice God commanded the followers to perform, being used in the example given in Exodus 25:18-20 but he’s talking about creating the place of repentance and reception of the law and a place to commune with god within the temple. Not a cross that one can look upon and feel they are communing with god, not a small trinket or large statue but a specific place that god will commune with the nation of Israel to provide them a source of stability as well the passage in 1 chronicles. Concerning the images of Christ, the usage of Numbers is odd, as it pertains to the transgression of the word of God unto the children of Israel and concerns a serpent of brass and the salvation provided by looking upon it. This is not in any form the same as Icon worship practiced at this time. It is noteworthy to mention that it is only considered a heresy by them who view it as an acceptable practice.

 

Catharism (11th Century)

Catharism was a complicated mix of non-Christian religions reworked with Christian terminology. The Cathars had many different sects; they had in common a teaching that the world was created by an evil deity (so matter was evil) and we must worship the good deity instead. (Gnostic and zoarostrian beliefs)
They taught that the spirit was created by God, and was good, while the body was created by an evil god, and the spirit must be freed from the body. Having children was one of the greatest evils, since it entailed imprisoning another "spirit" in flesh. Logically, marriage was forbidden, though fornication was permitted. Tremendous fasts and severe mortifications of all kinds were practiced, and their leaders went about in voluntary poverty. Catharism is similar to the concepts of Mormonism and Jehovahs witnesses of today.

Protestantism

Protestant groups display a wide variety of different doctrines. However, virtually all claim to believe in the teachings of sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone"—the idea that we must use only the Bible when forming our theology) and sola fide ("by faith alone"— the idea that we are justified by faith only).

The great diversity of Protestant doctrines stems from the doctrine of private judgment, which denies the infallible authority of the Church and claims that each individual is to interpret Scripture for himself. This idea is rejected in 2 Peter 1:20, where we are told the first rule of Bible interpretation: "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation." A significant feature of this heresy is the attempt to pit the Church "against" the Bible, denying that the magisterium has any infallible authority to teach and interpret Scripture.

The doctrine of private judgment has resulted in an enormous number of different denominations. According to The Christian Sourcebook, there are approximately 20-30,000 denominations, with 270 new ones being formed each year. Virtually all of these are Protestant.

When studying the many different denominations one stands in awe of the many stupefied scriptural differences among them, and the many points wherein each tends to fall into agreement upon. All having a basic reference derived from the scriptures, yet, the present problem in churches today is that they can’t agree upon basic truth. One says Jesus is trinity the other says he is only one, another acknowledges both separately and independently and others agree with nothing.

  Jansenism

Jansenius, bishop of Ypres, France, initiated this heresy with a paper he wrote on Augustine, which redefined the doctrine of grace. Among other doctrines, his followers denied that Christ died for all men, but claimed that he died only for those who will be finally saved (the elect). This and other Jansenist errors were officially condemned by Pope Innocent X in 1653.

 

In accordance with the historic Roman Catholic Church, one can see that in their mind any belief structure contrary to the mired inconsistencies of its own growth was considered a heretical doctrine. They have finally conquered their members, in maintaining they’re hold over the gospel. While it is absolutely without doubt the root of the church in physical form, it is not the singular body of faith.

The Three questions

 

So lets say that one wishes to discern the belief structure of any one particular person. I think there are only three questions one needs to ask any one person.

 

•  
  1. Is man (as beings of flesh) born evil, innocent or neutral in relation to holiness and sinfulness? (not that they have a recognition of either pole of understanding).
  2. Was Jesus born a man of flesh, god incarnate, or a distinct divine being created by god.
  3. Does a man have control over his own soul or does God control a mans destiny?

These three questions seem to pin most people into expressing theyre belief structure along the lines of Catholicism, Protestantism or Montanistic, or Catharism.

 

By outlining the following points of each faith one can discern a persons underliying understanding of the gospel and begin to target the vulnerable and real issues facing people today.

 

Kath-olic	Montanist	Protestantism	Gnostic	Catharism
TrinitarianFather, Son and holy spirit are three distinct persons acting as one being	Sabellianism There is one god that works in three modes.	Self rule, PelagianismTrinity structure, but relinquishing rights over scripture to each person.	All flesh is evil.	Philosophical in nature. un-beholden to any doctrinal reference.
Inffalibility of the priesthood. Once saved, if lost can be reclaimed.	Once saved always saved, and that once/if fallen away unable to return.	Once saved always saved. Belief is faith and that is all that is required	God alone has the ability to save as he wills, Jesus performs the will of the father.
Baptism is in the name of each member forming GOD, the father, the son and the holy ghost	Baptism is made in the manner of the apostles, in the NAME of JESUS CHRIST.	Baptism is in the trinity formulae as established by the Katholic church.	There is no baptism, simply a belief in Gods existence	To each theyre own design of salvation

 

All in all, there are only 3 types of Christian belief structures that differ one from another. They are: Trinitarian, Sabellianism and Palagianism while gnosticism has it’s place in historical context it is really way off base from established doctrine to actually rival the other 3. so I wont include it in established versions only as a reference point for many of today’s existing churches I.E..church of scientology, Mormon,and Jehovahs Witnesses.

 

Trinitarians must first resign themselves to determine which facet of Trinitarian they wish to believe in. And this furthers sows dissension amongst them because of the mannerisms attached to the belief structures they chose.

•  
  1. Economic Trinity: pushes towards a belief in the father of…son of…and spirit of, in example the father of Jesus, the son of God, spirit of god.
  2. Ontological trinity (essential): pushes toward a hierarchical system approach, in which God rules over the son, who is above the holy spirit.

 

Of the two types there is a commonality, in that the three persona’s of God are approached on an individual basis, in such that God is separated from the Son who is separated from the holy ghost, yet having the same “desire” of operation for creation. While the other says that GOD, the unknown entity consists of

 the father alone, his son alone and the holy spirit alone. How they coexist is a mystery, but that they do, is a known.

 

Both versions of Trinitarian doctrine are incomplete, and by design the proprietors of the doctrinal stance recognize it. It has become an acceptable hole, leaving one to close it with faith in what is presented as believed upon, and that is counted towards they’re faith.

 

In Sabellianism, there is no open door, it is a closed loop. The work of salvation begins and ends with God alone, the father is God, the son is God and the Holy spirit is God. The belief is one that states:

 God became incarnate in flesh yet retained his Fathership, becoming both father and son in his creation, and performing the will of the father in Flesh, so called Son of man, descended into hell, and ascending to heaven thereafter. And then sharing the gift of his work in the form of the Holy spirit, who then provided the intercession for man to God. That man does not speak for god on his behalf, but that God alone communicates through his spirit with man.  

This is indeed a reflective position held by the apostles, but in it’s application does not allow for obvious differences in applicable grace. It is combated by the statement that Jesus denied that he was the father, But that he performed the work of the father. Those who believe in sabellius, do not contradict this position, rather they state that God, as the role of God created and established laws for the creation, The Son of God, which performs the will of God while operating in the flesh. does not defy the law of god and that the Spirit of god, or the Paraclete, comforter, shekinah, is the means that god uses to tie the regenerated fleshly mind to God. Therefore, God does speak out of those who receive his law. Now are they prophets, yes, anyone that speaks the direct will of god is a prophet, are they different from apostles? Yes in the mannerism of the desired will being proclaimed.

 

In its application, grace is applied to the individual, and yet once sin occurs the original belief held that grace was revoked in some manner. How then could one be reclaimed?  Original Sabellianism, stated only that Once saved, a person cannot release himself from gods love, therefore no one could be removed and no one could removed himself who truly received the holy spirit. The ecstatic practice of speaking in tongues was the proof of the reception of the holy spirit.

 

Protestantism, or Pelagianism, states that man can come to god of his own desire, without the intervention of the church, save that man has the desire to please god and do that which is just and good, private judgment in which man has the power to judge himself.

 

Pelagianism in European churches gave way to the great schism, in which the protestants broke from the catholic church, and developed into so many different beliefs they can barely be counted today. Everyone defines they’re own self styled belief structure.

The Christian today

 

Unfortunately, today the church is fractured along lines of separation so ingrained into its members, it’s too difficult to relinquish. While, Racial and Economic differences, are two major sticking points to the fracturing of true church doctrine. You have the Catholic Church defining the church belief structures, and regardless of the two divisions of trinitarianism all those who adhere to the adopted belief, maintain an inkling of allegiance to it. This includes the churches of the reformation and those that branched out. Also those churches that have turned toward Sabellianism “economic trinity” are just as fractured as the others.

                        Gnostic Entities

 

Now lets investigate the extremely off base doctrines of Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witness. These are two very Gnostic belief structures, that tend to borrow from protestantism, zoarostrianism, arianism and basic Gnostic beliefs to define something not quite correct, and not all entirely incorrect. In defying the doctrine of trinity, they have set themselves against the catholic church, but they cannot defend they’re belief structure against the montanist belivers, so they incorporated a bit of it to justify themselves in their belief of “speaking in tongues” to some extent. Yet they are adamant that God does not impart his salvation in this sign, yet they and many others forget:

Ezekiel 24:25 Also, thou son of man, shall it not be in the day when I take from them their strength, the joy of their glory, the desire of their eyes, and that whereupon they set their minds, their sons and their daughters, 24:26 That he that escapeth in that day shall come unto thee, to cause thee to hear it with thine ears?

24:27 In that day shall thy mouth be opened to him which is escaped, and thou shalt speak, and be no more dumb: and thou shalt be a sign unto them; and they shall know that I am the LORD.

 

Those who are ESCAPED shall show the sign of their release by speaking the words of gods will that it shall be heard. This is addressed to the Jews, of all flesh and it is the only sign provided by god to which they know the prophecy of Ezekiel would be seen. Does this mean that everyone that doesn’t speak in tongues is not saved?

 

The prophecy of what was to come, has fulfilled itself and all who received the grace of God have received it. The apostles proposed a certain manner of obtaining salvation, that is different from the essential Trinitarian formulae or Gnostic formulae or Pelagianistic or protestant belief structure. It is more in line with Sabellianism, Pentecostal, Montanist doctrines, and Judean core belief structures. To answer, I am not God and have no power over a gourd within a desert to save it from a worm (reference Jonah). So I cannot say that any man has not received salvation. Yet I will say that Irenaus should not have stated that men can be saved without the blessing of the holy ghost evidenced in the speaking of tongues. That was a mistake I think that has come back to corrupt the church rather than assist it. I understand why what was said was said. But I don’t agree.

 

The commonalities amongst the major belief structures of today vs those of the past.

 

One of the most intriguing points I’ve noticed is that many doctrinal beliefs that pull together peoples into one type of church or another have their roots in an already proposed belief structure. That belief structure in basic context forms the pillar of belief for that particular church, such as Jehovahs witnesses via Arianism or Mormons and Gnosticism or Pentecostals and Montanists. The process always remains the same yet subtle immersions are incorporated to validate their church to the masses.

 

The following church houses hold to the corresponding heretical directions.

________________________________________________________________________

Jehovah Witnesses – Arianism, Protestantism

Mormons –  Protestantism, Trithieism, Nestorianism

Baptist – Protestantism, Nestorianism

Pentecostal – Sabellianism, Montanism, Protestantism, monism, patri-passion

Catholic – Trinitarianism, Nestorianism, Athanasianism

 

These are the chief Households of Christian faith in the world today, and in these houses, many people find solace, continuity and self legitimacy in their faith. Who can say which is right and which is wrong? History is the only one that can differentiate amongst them and our future is the only judge. While they all tend to share from one another in their evolution of doctrines, there is still only one chief household of faith pertinent to the salvation of mankind. That is the doctrine established by the original apostles. While it is highly debated as to what exactly are the teachings of the apostles, be they literal translations or allegorical examples of faith, they stand as the truth of the church. And while the Catholic church holds the rights in articles to these documents, it has lost the foundational right to exclusively hold them as their holy right, thus making it the authentic yet dead to that church.

 

Am I a catholic hater? NO god forbid, I seek truth, and in seeking truth the inevitable facts by which men have faltered come to life, am I a Protestant hater? No, God forbid, but in all truth confusion born of those believers actions have fostered a false sense of confirmation into the salvation process. I cannot by any means dictate the pattern of truth as I find them, because my sense of research dictates that I don’t.  I am a Pentecostal, I believe in the apostles doctrinal approach to salvation, I believe that the apostles spoke in the law “shekinah” in receiving the authority to operate in the will of God, just as the other 200+ people in that room did. I believe that The Montanist should not have been discerned as heretical by the church but embraced for the truth they were captured in as the once staunch catholic literalist found “Tertullian” and that Sabellious was on the right track. I believe that the church has an obligation to present the facts of its position and not back down on the process of salvation. I believe that it is God who dispenses salvation and not based upon our desire alone, but upon his own judgment firstly. Being saved and are saved are two separate states of being.

 

                        04/04/2006

A closer look at “The Trinity”

Once again I find out more and more concerning the gospel of Christ, I fear the lord is grooming me as a Shepard. My flesh fears but my heart and mind drive me to know more of Christ and expound on what I know and clarify areas of teaching that are too confusing to me. One such area was the basic usage of the Trinitarian doctrine and the role it plays in the formation of Christian life.

 

The trinity is an established doctrinal thesis in the church that defines the completeness of the godhead. There are two manners in which this doctrine is perceived as truth, yet while one is the adopted form of gospel belief the other is recognized as being legitmate yet not adopted, even a force to be considered. This means that there is enough truth to directly affect the adopted version of the formulae and it would be dangerous to challenge it based upon it’s ability to alter the adopted versions truth. And to maintain legitimacy within the church it is better to recognize and not condemn vs condemn and run the risk of altering the adopted.

First lets look at the adopted version of trinity or “essential trinity”. It is defined as Ontological or as being the one GOD as a family of three personalities each one being co-equal and co-eternal.

 

It is illustrated as such:

GOD

Comment | 0 Trackbacks Gnosticism – Influencer of Christianity Gnosticism — Posted by jubei @ September 17, 2007 10:40 Print View Even before the birth of Christ, Religions and beliefs albeit pantheon, cultural or monolithic, have existed, flourished and shaped the lives of man. Egyptology, Greecian mythos and various Babylonian Gods, more ancient than anything that exists today, Held sway over mankind, and explained the unexplainable in ways accepted even today in some societies. Science had not taken a clear foothold in the early origins, so Gods and Goddesses were the main explanation of all things both great and small. Then comes a small group of nomadic wanderers, with “so called” roots in Babylonian belief structures, led by a man named Abrahm which in turn founded the most permeate religion on the planet? From this one man, “Abraham”, the entire nations of the world are influenced. How could this occur? Where is the ring of truth that lies somewhere within the approach towards Judaism and eventually Christianity that was witnessed by more than the followers of this religion. Believers don’t solidify a religion, non-believers do, as they are converted to believers, but it is the witness of non-believers of that conversion that legitimizes one particular belief structure over another. If God existed as the soul proprietor of belief, then would belief be in vain? What reward is there in the faithful converting the faithful? It is the faithful converting the unfaithful in which the reward is accomplished. In the process the religious growth of what is now called “Christianity”, there is a encompassing of old and new belief structures that are being used to justify current belief structures. Distinguishing between forward and backward facing religious beliefs is substantially achieved as man becomes aware of certain truths to earlier mythos and events said to have been influenced by the paragons of any one belief structure. Take the story of Noah, the World being covered with water, as this is impossible, we have concluded that the “world according to “Noah” was influenced by a flooding event. This is backed up in a Babylonian writing of the book of Gilgamesh, in which the Noah character is swept up into similar circumstances. There are certain truths to many Mythos, yet there are also explanations that have a relevance to realistic occurrences. It is the defining of these occurrences that I find fascinating. While maintaining the truth of the given situation, truly god did warn Noah of the impending doom and Noah did build a manner of safe passage, whether it was populated by every beast of the earth, is in question. But it did exist. The above example of the deluge, may lead one to reason the obvious, there are more than one side to every story. And this leads us into an arena of contesting belief structures. As one man believes life derived in one way, another believes it another way. They all share a central core understanding that the father of life and the mother of life existed. Even still the defining actions are based upon stories, upon poetic dissertations and here says, and stories passed down from generation to generation as fact and not kept in the context of truth, but passed on as truths. This leads us to the pre current supposition of man, The religions of man who grew to populate the world in the manner they have, and how these religions became relative to one single belief structure. When we speak of Gnosticism, what are we talking about? What is a Gnostic, who were Gnostics and how does it influence us in today’s society?  These are just some of the things I’ve wondered in regards to this topic. The definition of a Gnostic is roughly “a seeker of knowledge” or in other words: identification of groups emphasizing the salvific benefit of individual wisdom. It is important to note the “individual wisdom “, approach is what constitutes or makes up a Gnostic, defining a salvation belief structure based upon a single personal perspective. Not so much as influencing others to follow that structure, yet the belief is ultimately accepted by large influential groups of people. True Gnostic belief, in design, is an understanding or consciousness gained through personal experience. They seek to relieve themselves of all ignorance because of lifes experiences. Even before the advent of Christianity Gnostics existed and flourished within the world of man. There have always been those who sought the “answer” to life in one way shape or form. Many of the old religions held to a “pantheonic” belief structure. This gave early religions a means of explaining the unexplainable in the simplest of form without holding the chief God that was worshipped with un-feigning devotion in infallible status, casting all bad situations upon an evil god versus a favorable god. This leads to the concept of two states of moralistic existences one favorable the other unfavorable, one good and the other evil, one light while the other darkness or what is considered “Dualism”. One of the main areas of understanding between both Christian and Gnostic is the belief in dualism, the understanding that there is a struggle between two opposing forces, one of light the other of dark. During the pre-Christian years, many cultures defined theyre belief structure in a few core manners, either as pantheons, dualistic, or paganism. Out of these three core belief mannerisms dwelled the entire basis for discovering life as it pertained to human experiences. Since knowledge was pronounced in this search the Grecian phrase “Gnosis” was used to describe those individuals that ascribed to the search of unknown origins of human suffering and delights. As knowledge became more and more acceptable within civilizations, the usage of a particular belief to hold people in vast kingdoms beholden to the sovereign power became more acceptable and thus was instituted as an acceptable means of governance. As in earlier civilizations, people of a particular race were separated mainly by regional belief structures as wars were considered a conquest over another god by their outcome. Within Judaism lies many time periods of Gnostic influenced kingdoms and paganistic influenced kingdoms injection of beliefs into the core Judaic peoples mindset. This lends some credence to later Christian Gnostics who utilize certain areas of Judaic scriptures to validate a particular Gnostic belief. In this study, I will attempt to determine what the originated beliefs are that influenced current Christian thought towards a particular means of worship. The early Christians During the influencing period of christian expression, the event that marks it’s beginning is the “immaculate” birth of Jesus Christ, Yashua the messiah. As he was presupposed to have been born of god’s word and not of any mans doings. Since the belief of Gnostics is that “all matter is evil” a being that existed but was not produced through the efforts of flesh was intriguing to say the least. The substantial witness of this was given credence of, through family witnesses and the facts events declared through biblical accounts and word of mouth accounts from existing people. How can this be proved though? One must believe in faith that the accounts of the birth occurred as spoken based upon the events that occurred afterwards, the baptism and events upon which witnesses presented. Not of those that believed but of those that didn’t believe and still came to the same conclusion. With the establishment of the afore prophesied messiah in bodily form as Jesus, the events of his life and the message of his preaching, gave understanding of many Jewish sects that had gravitated toward Gnosticism. It is my perception that Jesus proposed a manner of solidifying a growing division of understanding Gods existence that incorporated the growing Gnostic belief structure and the monotheistic conclusion of Gods existence in Judaism. The events show that John the baptizer was of the Mandeans sect of Jewish believers, of which existed also fractured groups of Essene Jewish believers, yet this does not mean that the origins of Christianity are not based on true Judean principles, but what it does state is that there is validity to the division of Judean applications of tradition and cultural Jewish religious practices. As many Mandeans believe in frequent baptisms as a form of worship this brings a certain realistic value and clarification to the event of Jesus the Christ’s baptism in which the spirit of God stated that he was well pleased with his cleansing. The usage of baptism as we had been taught was to “wash away sins” but if Jesus had no sins, and he was baptized then why was god pleased? The answer lies with the Mandeans usage of baptism in cohesion to the Judeaic usage of baptism. Jesus did not represent the Gnostic approach to belief in god, he represented the Judaic presentation. Thus when the Judaic representation was baptized in the established Mandean and Essene mannerism this created quite a situation, here we have an established Judean rabbi, who was given authority to speak in the temple, establishing the process of baptism that reconciled atonement washing in mandeanism with Judaism and sacrificial cleansing. This is the pleasing God referred to, the correction of why baptism is performed, to establish the man for atonement through spiritual washing. Sometime after the death of Jesus, the persecution of the growing Christian movement commenced, as it was both a growing concern and disdain for both Gnostic-Judeans and rabbinical Judeans but mainly amongst rabbinical Judeans since mainly Gnostic-Judeans were the converted, and anyone that was converted was considered a blasphemer of Judaism. While many Gnostic-Judeans remained loyal to rabbinical customs they were however still regarded as lost, or agitators or out right blasphemers. Still the ranks of Christian believers grew out of it’s proposal’s to the inclusion of various Gnostic belief structures which were considered “Pagan” and a growing movement away from pagan practices with a new moral code. The writings to the Corinthian and Thessolonian churches show the mannerism in which the apostles and their disciples dealt with Gnostic conversion.  The growing church required someway to curtail controversial practices within Christianity that tended to inject non-conforming mannerisms of thought to the original message of the apostles instructions. They passed down three writings by which scripture was to be taught and administered unto people. They are: The Septuagint The Shepard by Hermas The Didache  Early believers of Christianity created a book that was heavily Gnostic inspired as it was presented in a manner that would encourage clarification of belief structures under Jesus Christ. The “Didache” interpreted as “the teaching”, starts out by declaring two ways, one of light and the other of darkness. That clarion call still exists today. This is dualism; it was used as a means to represent Christian morals and values amongst people. It really did not cover the plan of salvation, but more so a moralistic view of what a christian should be, do or look for in other Christians.  In a letter written from Pliny to Emperor Trajan, the paganistic ruler of Rome for a time, he made mention of the teachings of Christians noted by those he investigated had to say for themselves. On one occasion, when people were told to renounce Christianity and they did the denouncers stated that all Christianity did was uphold certain moralistic codes not uncommon in any other good belief. There was no mention of a Eucharist or communion, which was a reason for many persecutions, but more of what was called “superstition”. When two female slaves were investigated, and tortured, these deaconesses as they were titled by the Christians held onto certain “superstitions”. Or in other words, they believed in the holy ghost’s power to preserve them during they’re investigation, and in my opinion performed the actions of “Shekinah” in their presence confusing and solidifing their interrogators to believe that Christianity was a very simple and strange belief, the mentioning of “superstitions” was evidenced to be called. In the bible the book of Acts 15:12 and 21:25 there are comments by St.Paul of Tarsus, that references the lines of this ruler Pliny’s actions to root out and persecute Christians with the edict that if any man renounces Christianity and offers a sacrifice or worship to an idol they will be spared. Also the church in Corinth dealt with the issue in regards to converting Gnostics to Christianity, in 1Corinthians 8:10 the writer Paul states that if a Gnostic sees a Christian eating food offered to idols, it will solidify them in their belief and make it more difficult for conversion. So what was going on in corinth? Persecution, growing gnostic conversion and dealing with gnostic belief’s changing core apostolic teaching. In reference to the bible there were 3 churches that dealt solely with the Gnostic incursion and issue. These were “Rome, Corinth and Ephesus”. Of these Corinth had the largest problem, and why is that? Roman churches issues with the Gnostics was in regards to the Gnostic belief having direct conflict with apostolic teaching. The Gnostics rejected apostolic teaching and vise versa but the Gnostics desired to have knowledge they felt was impartial to the apostles. The original position of dealing with Gnostics was to offer them an explanation into thier search of knowledge leading them to God and Jesus Christ. For many Gnostics viewed the works of the apostles as a heightened state of knowledge. They followed after the Apostles teachings in order to gain some sense of knowledge, not explicitly to receive salvation. The church in Corinth however serves a different backdrop on the Gnostic inclusion. It was dealing with the paganistic ruling of the time, and the fallout of Christians who were Gnostic converts, that viewed Christianity as a search for knowledge rather than a search for salvation. It dealt with the ruling of denouncing Christianity by eating meats offered to idols, and how Gnostics who they were reaching out to viewed Christian converts as pagans, it would be more difficult to convert them. * I had always wondered what, "food offered to idols, really meant. I mean we all have the usual interpretation of large statues depicting various gods/godesses existing with lavish meats spread out and foods of fruits and such. but this doesnt seem like a realistic view. I would think that it would be something more simplistic and real and subtle and just as validating as the lavish party like feast spreads of ancient roman depiction. like say a family that sits down to dinner, and blessing the food gives reference to a particular god that was thought to be the chief diety over that particular food type. fruits, wine meats and such. could this not also be included? but back to the study...* So as we see the concern of the existing Gnostic community was growing. It went from explaining and them seeing the wonders of the apostles and wanting that knowledge, to including visual representation to Gnostic believers who grew afraid of conversion. They also continued with a little more clarity in this writing to the church of Corinth the second one, on explaining the difference between Godly knowledge given by the holy ghost and natural knowledge garnered by other means in that the two are different. The church in Ephasus was a conclusion on the matter of Gnostic conversion and the completion of their conversion. It surmised that there was no longer strife between Gnostic and Christian. That they were completely integrated into Christianity and Christianity had settled with Gnosticism. Now what does this all mean today? It serves as the basis for understanding the current position of the church today. It is the methods that were used to convert Gnostic thought to Christian conversion. What was produced from this is called “the early apostolic fathers” or rather interpretations of the apostles words and apostolic traditions.. These writings have given direction to the church for decades. Apostolic Fathers 1. Clement of Rome, instrumental in the roman position of Gnostic belief, that Gnostic belief in it’s core is incorrectly applied to Christian thought. 2. Ignatius, having been the 2nd successor to peter wrote letters on his way to martyrdom. 3. Barnabas, the companion of ST. Paul 4. Polycarp, the companion of John 5. Hermas, the writer of “the Shepard” 6. Papias, the bishop of the Coptic (Egyptian) church in hieropolis These six are considered the authors in some way shape or form of existing church doctrine, their writings serve as distinct guidelines to Christian inspiration. Strict adherence is made in reference to their work and recorded writings to the various churches. How is it that I reconcile Gnostic thought to these individuals? It is by either exclusionary or inclusion methods I have ascertained the role of one father or another in the insertion of a Gnostic thought. Remember it is in the seeking of knowledge that Gnosticism resides. Christianity cures that hunger by providing a rich assortment of theoretical menus for the hungry. Thus it is important to recognize what each member of the apostolic fathers provided. Clement being of Rome, offered a base food, the difference of one and the other. Ignatius offered asceticism that was akin to normal Gnostic practice. Polycarp offered insight into the workings of the apostles, in his interpretation of John. Barnabas offered historical insight and legitimacy in the practices of the apostle Paul. Hermas offered a manner of belief that was repentance in salvation through penance or rather that martyrdom was glorifying. Papias was translator to a very important group of individuals trusted with sacred relics and such. Each provided a different need, of human knowledge that completely satisfied Gnostic thinking that was growing in the church, bolstered by certain gospels written as testimonies of other obscure individuals that lent testimony to the life of Jesus Christ and provided the means for integrating certain elements into the original Christian thought, Gnostical Influenced renderings of doctrinal beleifs. Now am i saying that the foundation of all current christian beleif is gnostic? Not completely yet a great deal of it is. The accepted and delivered and developed version of christian thought definately has been overtly influenced, and a certain level of gnostic influence has been accepted, because if the core teachings of the apostles had been adhered to we would have a very different church, and far fewer churches. (look for a future writing of "the church vs the churches" it may make a lot of people angry, but the truth is the truth) I forgot where I saved it so I may need to rewrite it. The next thing is to compare the belief structure of Gnostics with those of the apostles. For this we need to identify and demonstrate the events and peoples thinking in accordance to what the gospels state and what the Gnostics state. First the groups that existed that influenced the movement of Gnostic thought. In the recordings of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the book of matthew calls out the various groups of people jesus was addressing in theyre descriptive nature of belief. They are called “the beatitudes”. 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (ebionite) 5:4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted (the jewish community) 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. (mandeans) 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. (Gnostics, those who seek knowledge) 5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (Maestrians) 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. (beleivers) 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (essenes) 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (the Judeans) 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. (all those that would accept his gospel)   Jewish Gnostics The Essenes, Jewish religious group, thought to have been the order that produced Jesus Christ. Many areas of thought are akin to the teachings beholden by Jesus. Such as the wearing of white robes, or having clothes washed to be as white or as pure as possible. It is possible that the people Jesus communicated with the most would have been Essenes as they were considered to be a little on the outside of normal rabbinical Jews, although they still adhered to mosaic laws. The kindred mannerisms of worship are: a. Strictly celibate but communal life. b. Collective ownership c. Elected a leader to attend to the interests of them all whose orders they obeyed d. Forbidden from swearing oaths e. Forbidden from sacrificing animals f. Controlled their temper and served as channels of peace g. Carried weapons only as protection against robbers h. Owned no slaves but served each other i. Did not engage in trading. j. The food of the Essenes was not allowed to be altered (by being cooked, for instance) k. After a total of three years probation, newly joining members would take an oath that included the commitment to practice piety towards the Deity and righteousness towards humanity, to maintain a pure life-style, to abstain from criminal and immoral activities, to transmit their rules uncorrupted and to preserve the books of the Essenes and the names of the Angels. l. Their theology included belief in the immortality of the soul and that they would receive their souls back after death. The Ebionites Called “The poor ones” an early sect of jewish followers of jesus. They regarded a vow of poverty as a meritorious method of preparation for the "Kingdom of Heaven”. There are many references within the bible to the poor in spirit, the beautitudes come to mind. Blessed are the “poor in spirit” for there’s is the kingdom of heaven. Ebionites denied the divinity of Jesus, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and the death of Jesus as an atonement. Ebionites seemed to have emphasized the humanity of Jesus as the mortal son of Mary and Joseph who became the messianic "prophet like Moses" when he was anointed with the holy spirit at his baptism. Suggestions exist that Ebionites believed all Jews and Gentiles must observe the Law of Moses; but it must be understood through Jesus' expounding of the Law, which he taught during his Sermon on the Mount. They revered John the baptizer as the precursor to Jesus and that the true succession of the church is passed through John the brother of Jesus rather than through Peter. Also that paul was an apostate (meaning one who defects original teachings) from the law and a false apostle. A lot of these teachings are found in islam, as they are influencers as ebionites of early islamic development. The islamic reference of historical biblical teachings are rooting in ebionite belief structure, through the islamic historian Abd al Jabbar. The catholic experience calls the ebionites, “Judaizers”, and considered them a very significant threat as a heresy to the early church. As paul spoke against the curcumcision of gentiles or as their needing to follow after Messianic law’s. Also called the “Nazorean Essenes” these are the Essenes that could marry.  Elcesaites A sect of followers, “of Jesus”, whose religion it was a syncretism, (combination of), of both Gnosticism and Jewish Christianity. The source of the religion derives from a man in Parthia, named Elchasai, carrying a book, he claimed to have received from two giant angelic beings, one the son of god the other his sister “the holy ghost”. It announced that a new baptism was to be administered unto the remission of sins and it was to be administered even to the grossest of sinners. (In other words anyone unrepentant could be baptized) It included “circumcision”, that Christ was a man like any other, that he had many times been born on the earth by a virgin, and in astrology, magic and incantations. That for all sins of impurity and against nature itself there is a second baptism that is to be performed in the name of God and his son the great king. It condemned virginity and continence, and made marriage obligatory. It permitted the worship of idols to escape persecution, provided the act was merely an external one, disavowed in the heart. Prayer was to be made not to the East, but always towards Jerusalem. Sacrifices were condemned, with a denial that it had been offered by the patriarchs or under the Mosaic Law. The Prophets as well as the Apostles were rejected, and of course St. Paul and all his writings. Persian Gnostics Mithraism Originated in the Eastern part of today's Iran around the 7th century BC and ended around the 4th century AD considered to have been founded by Zoroaster. Women were not allowed to join, and It was not documented much and depended upon being passed from initiate to initiate, considered a supernaturally revered body of scripture. This practice is significant because one of it’s chief beleifs is of it’s god “rising from the dead” from inside a rock. The correlation of Jesus’s rising from the dead, rolling back the stone is strikingly synonymous with mithrian belief that many roman soldiers were easily grafted into christianity based upon this belief correlation. Some consider paul to have been a believer of this thought, so it was easy for him to associate Jesus as Mithra the god. This god was also seen as a mediator between the demiurge or the two forces of light and dark. Which is commensurate with the Plutonist, trinity solution of the divinity of Jesus christ. Mandaean Gnosticism Mandean is a term for the religion of the followers of an ancient primeval method of worship that has roots in reverence to Sabeanism, or the son of Seth who’s name was Sabi, whom along with the his brother Enoch are buried in the pyramids. They believed in one god, but approached that one god through the forms of the sun, moon stars and other forms, while most Arabs were Sabeans before the conversion to islam we see evidence of this beliefs origins in the biblical account of Abraham whom was called out of his original belief structure of worshipping “SIN” the moon god who was considered as the ONE god into the Judean belief structure. In a sense Modern islam takes it’s roots from the belief structure of Sabeanism with regards to cultural and monotheistic approaches towards worship of the one God. Christianity lends much of it’s account of worship to Mandean practices in baptism and original theology, the practice of eating meals that remember Jesus Christ in it’s form of communion and such. They consider Adam, Noah and John the Baptizer as prophets, but not Abraham, Moses, or Jesus, (I am leaving Muhammad out of the equation for personal opinion) as since the approved entities maintains a sort of original ascension of thought in approach towards salvific restoration. It is a monotheistic based religion with a strong Dualistic world view. It is safe to assume, that many of the followers of John the baptizer were mandaean in original belief, and presumed John to be a practicing mandaean based upon the message he was teaching and as he baptized many into repentance which was common practice of Mandaeans as well. In their belief that through baptism the light become accessible to the participant of baptism, and that without baptism no man can begin any transversal into the heavens The only requirement of being a Mandaean is to be born to Mandaean parents. There are no creeds, or systemeatic principles associated with it. This made it very easy to accept by anyone at anytime. They perform frequent baptisms, thus the following and acceptance of john the baptizer was affluent. Yet they hold the tenants of Jesus Christ in association with the law from Moses, in contempt and thus reject both Jesus and the law outright. It is safe to deduce that many followed Jesus after the death of John the baptist and that in all honsty many of the first followers of Jesus were mandeans including many of the apostles. Mandeans believe in marriage and procreation, and in the importance of leading a moral and ethical lifestyle. This is in line with many of the writings by Pliny to Emperor Trajan in the testaments of the investigations of the Christians, in which they stated that upon renouncement of Christianity that all they did was to promote an ethical and moral lifestyle. They do not however practice asceticism in any manner nor celibacy, while they do abstain from red meat and strong drink. As there is no single authoritative account of creation, the mandean position is an integration of many religious beliefs that have come in contact with it. They also measure men by the manner of knowledge called “the secret knowledge”. The book of Ephesians was written in order to comment on the matter of Gnostic inclusion and correctness of the gospel. It spoke on Gnostic thought in obtaining “secret knowledge”. Eph 5:6-15 Comment | 0 Trackbacks search Menu Main Albums Send us a story! Summary Admin Categories The War room [7] General thoughts of life!! [4] Holy spirit, Holy Ghost, Paraclete [2] Gnosticism [2] General [4] archives June 2008 May 2008 November 2007 September 2007 « November 2008 » Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa             1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30             Meta RSS 0.90 RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0 Atom 0.3 Valid XHTML Links General Powered by LifeType, hosted by New Technologies.