Archaeologica.org

I don't think the Romans would have minded a religion that condemned the Jewish god Yahweh. Why should they bother? They probably figured it was good for their cause.

Yes, Ish. It was a blend - and that is the point. I think the Sanhedrin was trying to purge that. It made their god look "bad". Again - why would the original gnostics use a reference to Yahweh as the saviour? The name "Jesus" basically says that. If they were going to come up wi...

Other areas wouldn't have a problem at all with condemning the Jewish god. Take your pick. Myself - I still think it started with the Zoroastrians - as far as the gnosis part.

The gnostics existed before the time of the character Jesus, but I don't believe "Jesus" as a character in their story did. I think it was another of the symbolisms instilled into the story by the original writers of the story - to show "Yahweh is saviour". Either way - it goes a...

Point is Ish - Yahweh was the demiurge in the gnostic story and Abraxas was the true saviour - but in the christ story Yahweh is the saviour - hence the name Jesus as the Christ.

And neither did the gnostics - and I think that was the whole reasoning to starting the story of Jesus being the Christ - to prove that Yahweh was a good god and refute the gnostics.

Sorry Ish - was in answer to Min.

I kind of think the Jews had a sect that wanted to defend their OT god and show he was a good guy as opposed to the gnostic interpretation: from wiki: Gnosticism (Greek: γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge) refers to a diverse, syncretistic religious movement consisting of various belief systems generally unit...

Here's a smile for ya'!

http://www.superlaugh.com/1/smileback.htm

Yup. I remember reading something about Zoroastiansim with it too tho, maybe the idea for it came from that or something, but I also remember reading about the more fanatical ones believing something about that you had to die in order to achieve it. It's been a few years since I read the book, and t...

I'd have to look it up - I remember something I was reading a while back on it but I'd have to find the book in tghe mess I have - maybe I can find it on the web. Be a while doing it. I could be wrong, but I think that was what I remembered reading though that the human body was corrupt and the only...

Not so sure it is a different subject. I think the Gnostics were a different culture - that's the point I was trying to make. If I recall right they were against the supposed original teachings - and they couldn't be part of its start if they were against it.

Ishtar wrote: Rich: There is no such thing as death. That's why liberation is worth having. Then if there is no such thing as death - why do we need liberation? And if you are pointing at reincarnation - then once you are reborn - wouldn't the cycle start again which would then re-require liberation...

One small question - what good does liberation do after death?

How about poisoning it instead? One heckuva lot safer.

yupper - the REAL thing - watch out!!!!!!!!