Huh I found a new oxymoron(actually its an antithesis but I am not sure if anybody else knows what it means) today!

"Now you, sntjohnny are using "guilt by association" tactics by grouping me with gnosticism!"

Your tactics, sir, are gnostic tactics.  However, if you had read the post where this all originated from you would see that if anyone was a target in this thread it was geegee, and you surfaced on one point as an illustration of what I was talking about.   But I'm not really used to you actually reading what I say- or comprehending it- so I didn't really expect you to have noticed this.

If I was going to focus more on how you in particular employ gnostic tactics, I would focus more on your refusal to obey simple conclusions derived from simple grammar and literacy and your constant hiding behind the notion that there is this grand conspiracy to suppress the 'truth.'  Very gnostic.  Very 60s.  Very Hollywood.

"Furthermore, your accusation is ludicrous that just because you do not see the truth of God saving all that therefore the one who proposes it is giving out "secret knowledge.""

Your tactic, the one that I illustrated in this thread at least, rejected the argument which employed objective, non-biased sources, because they were 'human sources' and 'human methodologies.'  Whether or not this fits  into the category of appealing to 'secret knowledge' can be decided by lurkers.

"For instance, the two Gregories were staunch universalists in the early chuch as were many other learned divines and yet they were against the Gnostics! The one Gregory helped draft the Nicean Creed!"

I am willing to concede that my post was not explicitly clear that you yourself were a gnostic.  However, the post was extremely consistent in talking about methodologies.  That a universalist would oppose a gnostic, does not say anything about the methodologies employed by either.  As there are many different approaches to universalism and I have not studied the Gregories, I'm not sure on what basis they formed their conclusions.  As for you, on the other hand, I am being asked to suspend normal methods of inquiry.  And that is a gnostic approach.

"I cannot help but feel pity for you stooping this low."

I cannot help but think again to myself how very glad that I have never cared about what you think about anyone, or anything.  If you can stand a little pointed joke, I feel a bit with you like I do when I consider this Judge Roberts Supreme Court nomination.  The more vehemently certain groups oppose him, the better I feel about him.  Your pity, in this sense, means a great deal to me:  it probably means I'm on the right track.  

geegee, isn't it interesting that sntjohnny doesn't even realize what he is writing himself?

He first writes about Gnosticism in setting the whole tone of his thread then what does he do? he brings my name into the piece by saying "Thus Tony N claims . . . ."

And when I confronted him that he was using "guilt by association" by associating my name with Gnostics, he says "Your tactics, sir, are gnostic tactics. However, if you had read the post where this all originated from you would see that if anyone was a target in this thread it was geegee,"

But lo and behold, geegee's name does not even appear in his piece; only my name.

Have you noticed, geegee that sntjohnny loves obfuscation when confronted? Seems to me if anyone is using "Gnostic tactics" it would be him. LOL!

Isn't it strange that to say that "Olam/Aionios" can mean one thing in one passage but mean the completely opposite in another passage is not in accord with Gnosticism (according to sntjohnny's view) but to plainly believe God where He has said all the aion's end and that aionios pertains to the aions, that it therefore cannot possibly be greater than the noun from which it is derived (perfectly scientific and scriptural) that sntjohnny accuses us of Gnosticism, the very thing he is involved in!

geegee,

Pro 25:2 It is the glory of Elohim to conceal a matter, And the glory of kings to investigate a matter."

1Co 4:1 Thus let a man be reckoning with us - as deputies of Christ, and administrators of God's secrets."

geegee, maybe this verse is apropo:

2Th 3:2 and that we should be rescued from abnormal and wicked men, for not for all is the faith."

the faith surely is not for all during the eons/ages. But, wait till God resurrects them out of death, gives them immortality, justifies them all, reconciles them all. But wait! They won't need faith then. They will believe by sight!

Quote:
Your tactics, sir, are gnostic tactics. However, if you had read the post where this all originated from you would see that if anyone was a target in this thread it was geegee, and you surfaced on one point as an illustration of what I was talking about. But I'm not really used to you actually reading what I say- or comprehending it- so I didn't really expect you to have noticed this.

"specifically pointing me out (and Tony) as the reason for this threat..well...don't know what to say."

I assume you mean 'thread'?

Something you have said has never generated its own thread on my forums?  This I find hard to believe.    Actually, what I said- again, it'd be nice if what I actually say was referenced- was that "if anyone was a target in this thread."   But actually neither you nor he were the target.  Gnosticism and Secret knowledge and Questionable Approaches to Knowledge were the target, as is fully apparent in the text of the first post.  I certainly don't deny that both of you prompted me to write the thread.  

To me, the interesting thing is your responses.  First of all, apparently both you and Tony were offended.  Tony was.  He accused me of stooping low.  But in the last two posts you embraced the very thing that I was maligning.  Isn't that rather, I don't know, two faced?  You want to use the strategies and tactics (and if I am to understand your last posts, even some of the beliefs) of a long condemned heresy, but don't want to be associated with the label?   You are offended, and yet you admit the charge is true, and you embrace it as your position?

Seek.  Medical.  Help.  :)

"What are you pointing too to make you claim such things?"

I appreciate your seeking of the clarification.   Here is what Tony said:

"That's your problem, not mine. I don't go to human sources. I go and get my definitions directly by how God uses His words."

Here is what you said:

"I will say that i do consider the thoughts of non-biased sources concerning this word (anion/s/etc) but really does not prove if they really got its full import and meaning."

You then appeared to be offended by the fact that I only responded to one of your points.  I didn't see anything in what I did say in that response that was very offensive.  Anyway, then you said:

"Guess our brother Paul, who wrote most of what we read can fit that description? Don't know whether to laugh or cry."

You seemed to be clearly coming down on the side of thinking that truth is not objective, that the Scriptures cannot be interpreted from an objective basis, and that Paul himself brought secret knowledge.  

By all appearences so far in this thread, it seems that I've nailed it.  

"Then we can examine IF it is true what you are saying."

If what is true?  If gnosticism ought to be condemned?  If gnosticism really employs a self-defeating route to 'knowledge'?  Or that you and Tony seem to fit right in well with certain approaches to knowledge that gnosticism employed?  Whether that is 'good' or 'bad' would follow from our answers to the first two questions, if it was determined that you really were embracing gnostic strategies.

"But the most logical reason is that you misunderstand revelation altogether."

lol, yea, that's it.  No, actually the most logical reason is that I have had the experience of battling back from having no beliefs to sorting out which beliefs were more reasonable than others, and which beliefs carried the sort of weight that would require an objective person to adopt them.  Also I realized that God was aware of these issues and that Christianity is built from the bottom up on a premise relating to objective reality.  Either Christ rose, or he did not.  If he did, what he said is validated.  If he did not, its all rubbish.  Jesus' death and resurrection was not a 'revelation.'  It is either a real fact of history, or it is not.

That's not secret knowledge.  That's "Here is this remarkable claim, I dare you to evaluate it using all the tools at your disposal."

""Thus Tony N claims that I cannot see his point because I have been indoctrinated and that I am 'blind.'""

"This certianly can be true. Is this something you deny?"

Obviously it 'can' be true.  Are you asking if I deny its possibility, or if I deny its actuality?  Obviously I deny its actuality.  Its possibility is extremely unlikely in my case since I threw off all my beliefs in college and started over.  So if I was 'indoctrinated' I did it to myself.

"I don't think so...but then again..maybe so???????????????????????? (forever)"

I honestly don't know what this sentence is trying to communicate.

"What I mean is that some can be "blind"...ummm...is this something that cannot be found in scripture? If so, then me and Tony are in good company when it comes to your disparaging (oh yeah..that is the way i actually see this thread..nothing good about it)"

So I still have no idea what you mean.   Is WHAT something that cannot be found in scripture?  However, whether this thread is disparaging or not depends on whether or not you really want to lump yourself in with the gnostics, hook line and sinker.   Obviously I am disparaging the tactic.  You are not in 'good' company.  I suspect that you must not have any clue about what gnosticism is.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Do you?  Did you look at the link I provided?  

""And there is the rub with gnosticism and all sorts of claims to private knowledge or what not. There is no way to prove or disprove the point. You either see it, or you don't.""

"Oh my soleless booty man. Do you really here yourself??? No comment on this necessary."

Oh, I completely disagree.  You definitely should comment on this.  Notice the direct transition, after using an illustration, to the thing specifically being targeted:  'gnosticism and all sorts of claims to private knowledge or what not."  

Do you think that God thinks it best to try to limit himself to truth claims that cannot be proven or disproven?  Do you think, for example, that he would rather have it so that the resurrection was simply a matter of personal preference, and not a matter of objective reality?  Once again, you have here a chance to distance yourself from the target group.  But apparently, you do not wish to do so.

And that is very much the problem, and why I'm debating on this thread and not the Romans 5 thread.  Because if the two of you don't think that objective verification of truth claims is to be preferred, there is no reason to discuss anything with either or you, is there?  In fact, I almost find myself wondering what your point is in discussing anything.  I mean, it almost seems as though you were trying to convince people of something.... on what objective basis are you appealing?

And this is like nojc claiming "orthodox" teaching...lol...sorry?? Twisted Evil

"And you are the one to teach about "orthodox" christianity right?"

Yea.  Actually I have a pretty good handle on it, thanks.   And here is the critical point.  If you don't think I represent 'orthodox' Christianity on this point, you are certainly able to investigate it for yourself to decide- objectively- whether or not I have a good handle on it or not.  Unless you deny that any true 'orthodoxy' exists at all, you will find that I either represented it accurately, or I did not.  Claims resting on objective reality have that little thing going for them.

Your response seems to be:  "HA!  I don't think you represent orthodox Christianity, and I don't feel any need to show how you don't, because all that is important is that I don't think you do!  HA!"

I do hope you aren't seriously suggesting that the orthodox church has room for gnosticism.

Quote:

"So this is about "secret" things not being able to be supported eh? How many scriptures do you want in which such a claim has been made for us to believe in?"

Once again, I'm clueless about what you are talking about.  I am talking about gnosticism.  Are you?   But I think I know where the breakdown is.... Hey, geegee, you didn't happen to notice that when these 'secret' things were revealed, they no longer became secret, did you?    And, when these 'secret' things were revealed, they didn't happen to be validated by 'public' events, were they?  hmmmmm?

Take a look at this passage and see if you can make out how what you are talking about is different then what I'm attacking:

"You may say to yourelves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?  If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message that the LORD has not spoken.  That prophet has spoken presumptously.  Do not be afraid of him." Deut. 18:21-22

Does God not care that people will want to validate whether or not a 'secret' has been revealed?  ABSOLUTELY NOT.  In fact, he provides a mechanism (in this case, a pretty easy one) for verifying the claim.

This is not an exception in the Scriptures, its a pattern.

"i'm sure you know this self-claimed professions that we can find in scripture...."

Validated by the resurrection, my friend.

"This is basically a lie."

I'm tempted to trot out a very disparaging comment here.    I'll satisfy myself by simply pointing out that you don't feel compelled to provide any evidence of your assertion.  That's gnostic.  

""Christianity pins its truthfulness on a historical event. Either the resurrection happened, or it didn't. Either the historical evidence convinces you, or it does not.""

"And this is lie."

And this is evidenced by..... ?

Its at this point that I note that gnostic tactics often are reduced to third grade insult wars:

"I know you are, but what am I?"

"You are a liar!"

"Am not!"

"Am too!"

No evidence.  Just assertion.

So no doubt you are wondering where my evidence is, and since you probably have no interest in examining the historic Christian faith to see if what I said is true, or consistent with the historic Christian faith, but would probably not care anyway (except insofar as you might be able to justify your accusation that I am a liar) here is a Scripture passage by a certain apparently gnostic individual you respect a great deal:

"If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.  ....  "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile;  you are stil in your sins.  Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.  If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men."  1 Cor 15:12-19.

So, if the historic Christian church pins its hopes on the actuality of the resurrection, they got the idea from Paul himself, which should establish it as true in your eyes.  Right?  

But the interesting thing about this is that this particular statement by Paul is not all that profound.  It just about goes without saying that there is nothing to be believed about Christianity if it is not a real fact that Jesus rose from the dead.   It doesn't take a huge leap to recognize that the resurrection validates all the rest of it, take it or leave it.  And yet you apparently cannot make the leap.  All you can say is "This is a lie" when common sense cries out for its truthfulness.  Of course I know that common sense is not that sacred.  It is apparent, for example, that in this instance you don't possess it.  Which is why I cited Paul for you.

"Yikes. I cannot believe that you actually believe this stuff. Okay...i admit that some of it is legit...but to say that this is all it takes? Tsk Tsk...shame..shame."

And I say that 'this is all it takes' where?  And takes to what?   Which part was legit?  Where did it fail?  Or do you think inventing positions for me and then denouncing even the invented ones without substantiation is also a good tactic?

"Don't know whether this can be claimed against Tony...He seems pretty sure about his claims. Unless you are saying we cannot be sure about anything? You figure out your own claims here."

geegee.  Seriously.  Stop.  Breathe.  Read.  Did ANYTHING I SAY have anything to do with certainty of claims?  Did I not say:  "No doubt, you may very well have subjectively gained knowledge which you are confident of- but it does not follow that your subjective knowledge is sufficient enough to be constituted knowledge for someone else."  ????  Tony's certainty may mean something if I felt he was credible for some reason.  A person's certainty is not evidence in favor of the position.  He may be subjectively certain (pay attention here, geegee, a point is being made, one that was already made, in fact) but it doesn't follow that his subjective certainty is the same as objective evidence that I must consider for or against a position.

Are you really saying I should believe Tony's views because "Tony says so"?  That would be a ridiculously stupid thing to say, though that is what you are in fact saying, if only because you do not understand (more likely because you didn't actually pay me the courtesy of reading) what I wrote.  You would recognize the stupidity of such an argument in an instant and insist that we corroborate what Tony was saying by looking to the Scriptures.

Guess what, Jim?  That's attempting to use an objective methodology.  Something outside all three of us agree (in theory) is authoratative.  But here is the catch- you want to go to the Scriptures for objective verification of the claim but then you arbitrarily pull up and run again towards subjectivity.  That's a foul in any sport.

"Okay. Now I get to the most important part of this riduculous thing and what do i find???? NOTHING. We are then to trust our objective finding and maybe not so much our subjective intuition? Sorry...stated just to wrongly for me to accept this 100 percent. But it is good nevertheless. Just the whole argument is way to narrow and does not include God in the whole scenerio...such happens to those who reject the working of God. When will actually start giving God true praise?"

Am I being insulted in this paragraph?  Am I being commended?  Is my argument NOTHING or is it 'good nevertheless.'?  lol geegee.  You slay me dude.  Let's get to the part where you think that God is being eliminated.

The whole point is that this is specifically how God has worked since Christ (Hebrews 1:1-4).   Do you think that God wants people to commit intellectual suicide in order to believe in him or in Christ?  No doubt, there are certain intellectual attitudes that stand in the way of faith in him that need to be put to death before faith can take place (that's why I spend time on this forum), but that doesn't mean God wants us to reduce ourselves to imbeciles on account of him.

Now, you think that this means that faith only means intellectual assent.  That is propoganda.  The orthodox Christian faith, which you apparently have nailed enough to instantly recognize when I lie about it, has never reduced faith to intellectual assent.  Now I'm going to post some passages that refute the passages you provided in your other posts.

A final question.

Geegee, have you ever considered being a mormon?  Have you ever debated or discussed things with them?  If you are not a mormon, why not?

This is not an accusation that you are a mormon.  I'm trying to find out what your familiarity is with Mormonism so I can perhaps make the point plainer.

"I must admit that i did not fully read your last post...just parts. I will respond more on it in a few days...as i calm down from your nonsense and misunderstanding of my view. "

No offense, buddy, but you need to get it through your head here that what is being attacked is GNOSTICISM.  I have since clarified better, especially in relation to Tony, that I didn't say clear enough that I wasn't saying that he- or you- were gnostics.  I AM saying that you have been utilizing tactics that are gnostic in nature.  

So, if what I'm saying sounds like 'nonsense' it is probably because your ego still thinks you are the center of this thread.  Despite me saying:

"Actually, what I said- again, it'd be nice if what I actually say was referenced- was that "if anyone was a target in this thread." But actually neither you nor he were the target. Gnosticism and Secret knowledge and Questionable Approaches to Knowledge were the target, as is fully apparent in the text of the first post."

So, perhaps if you took some time to understand gnosticism more (try the link I provided extremely early in the first post to get started, there would be 'sense' in what I was saying.

And since it is the views of the gnostic's that I am attacking, there cannot be any misunderstanding of YOURS, unless in fact you hold gnostic views.  My argument that you both resorted to gnostic TACTICS remains.

In order to find out if my charge is true, you actually have to know what the gnostics believed and did.  You seem to want to identify yourself with them in my attack.  I can't do anything about that, other than to say, yet AGAIN, that gnosticism and more specifically, its methods, are the target.

So when you ask me if Paul was the first gnostic, you are not asking a question that makes any sense.   Paul believed in a physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Gnostics didn't.  Paul was convinced by an overwhelming OBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE.  In its own way, it was convincing evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.  So, on both content and methodology, Paul is different.

That is not what is being referred to when we talk about 'secret knowledge.'

I also can't remember a time bringing up anything about whether or not you believe in the resurrection of Jesus.  Please provide an example.

"Lol. Look at the thead "chrisitans are stupid". I see the same backstepping here. No more comment needed."

Actually, yea, there is comment needed.  If you refuse to employ basic literacy skills, there is no point in talking with you.  I do appreciate you being honest about what you think.  I DO NOT appreciate you ignoring the things that I do say, that allegedly you are reacting to.

"It was clear enough from not only me but from Tony. That is from two folks who read the thread...lol."

Well, that's heading right back to the problem.

"But anyway...never mind that...well never get anywhere if we keep going back and forth with that sort of thing."

No.  I disagree.  I think that what you are doing here is completely symptomatic of exactly what spawned this thread in the first place.  Let's look at the first post again:

I hunted up a source that tries to stay nuetral to minimize accusations that the material is skewed.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic.htm

In another thread I have confronted two individuals wishing to refute my point by claiming, more or less, that it could not possibly be valid since it is 'human.' Or whatever that means. I pointed out that this is just a variation of gnosticism, an ancient (but obviously present today) view that only initiates can see or understand certain truths.

Thus Tony N claims that I cannot see his point because I have been indoctrinated and that I am 'blind.' The possibility that there is a complete lack of evidence for his point is not possible, apparently. And there is the rub with gnosticism and all sorts of claims to private knowledge or what not. There is no way to prove or disprove the point. You either see it, or you don't.

This is a world apart from orthodox Christianity. Christianity pins its truthfulness on a historical event. Either the resurrection happened, or it didn't. Either the historical evidence convinces you, or it does not. There is no "Well, it would convince you, if only you were not blind." Obviously this does not mean that it is not possible for even solid conclusions derived from historical evidence and argumentation to be rejected, but the traditional approach still remains: Here is the evidence. This really happened. If you don't believe it, investigate it. You don't need special tools or special insight. The claims don't require you to adopt special methodologies.

If a methodology is really legit, it will work aross the board. This is why you will see Christian apologists evaluating for skeptics things like the existence of Alexander the Great, or other similar things, demonstrating that the existence of Christ is established in the same way and sometimes to a better degree than ordinary figures of history. The same method is being used- the skeptic is being asked to apply it consistently, or to not introduce another criteria in the one case that they don't in another (Sagan's Balance).

Gnosticism is really the end of knowledge, because once you start down that road you cannot know if what you possess is knowledge, or invention, because you have specifically eliminated the possibility (by deriding it as 'human' or some other such slander) of objective verification.

I would seriously suggest that real seekers of real knowledge consider that which can be established objectively to be of better quality than that which is established subjectively. No doubt, you may very well have subjectively gained knowledge which you are confident of- but it does not follow that your subjective knowledge is sufficient enough to be constituted knowledge for someone else.

Here we have 6 paragraphs.  Only 2 of the 6 paragraphs reference you guys at all.

The first paragraph only lays down the context.  I bolded it here this time around.  The next paragraph provides an illustration from that thread, but the reference to Tony makes up only half the paragraph.  The second half of the thread transitions to the point that I want to make about gnosticism.  The next 4 paragraphs are explicitly referring to gnosticism and its methodologies.  I have edited this post to underline the instances where methodologies have been referenced explicitly.  I left implicit ones alone.  There are 6 separate instances in this brief post.  I italicized a statement indicating that I am not denigrating subjective means, only the claims of one person's subjective experience on someone else.

So, I provide an introduction to put this thread in a larger context.  I provide a brief illustration.  Then I go on.

The rest of this thread has been you and Tony chafing at being grouped with gnostics and yet apparently embracing their methods (but I think you only do this because you don't know anything about them).

Furthermore, you asked me recently what it was that I was referring to when I mentioned that the two of you inspired the thread.  I have provided these references.

THE ONLY AMBIGUITY in what I said, and which I promptly clarified, is when I didn't make it clear enough that I wasn't actually saying the Tony was a gnostic.  I promptly clarified this and pointed out that I was talking about the tactics and methodology.

This is obvious from my second post.  

"Now you, sntjohnny are using "guilt by association" tactics by grouping me with gnosticism!"

Your tactics, sir, are gnostic tactics. However, if you had read the post where this all originated from you would see that if anyone was a target in this thread it was geegee, and you surfaced on one point as an illustration of what I was talking about. But I'm not really used to you actually reading what I say- or comprehending it- so I didn't really expect you to have noticed this.

If I was going to focus more on how you in particular employ gnostic tactics, I would focus more on your refusal to obey simple conclusions derived from simple grammar and literacy and your constant hiding behind the notion that there is this grand conspiracy to suppress the 'truth.' Very gnostic. Very 60s. Very Hollywood.

"Furthermore, your accusation is ludicrous that just because you do not see the truth of God saving all that therefore the one who proposes it is giving out "secret knowledge.""

Your tactic, the one that I illustrated in this thread at least, rejected the argument which employed objective, non-biased sources, because they were 'human sources' and 'human methodologies.' Whether or not this fits into the category of appealing to 'secret knowledge' can be decided by lurkers.

"For instance, the two Gregories were staunch universalists in the early chuch as were many other learned divines and yet they were against the Gnostics! The one Gregory helped draft the Nicean Creed!"

I am willing to concede that my post was not explicitly clear that you yourself were a gnostic. However, the post was extremely consistent in talking about methodologies. That a universalist would oppose a gnostic, does not say anything about the methodologies employed by either. As there are many different approaches to universalism and I have not studied the Gregories, I'm not sure on what basis they formed their conclusions. As for you, on the other hand, I am being asked to suspend normal methods of inquiry. And that is a gnostic approach.

I have again bolded the relevant points in this, my second post.  The first bold explicitly references the tactics.  The second bold puts my illustration about what Tony did in the perspective I had originally intended.  The false impression is listed in the third bold, with the correction, and also with the point that the rest of my first post had remained solidly on point.

I have also edited this post to underline explicit references to methodologies.   There are an additional 6 sections underlined.  Boy, I really can see how I have changed my tune, since at first I was talking and emphasizing the gnostic approach to gaining knowledge but now I'm talking and emphasizing the gnostic approach to gaining knowledge.

I have been consistent.  Completely, utterly.

Now, why am I focusing on this?

Why is it a big deal?  Am I trying to just prove that I am right?  Am I just trying to win an argument?  No.  I said that your reactions to my posts were symptomatic of the very point that I am making.  

Do I say what you say I say?  No.   Does it apparently matter?  Not to you, it doesn't.  Because you and Tony agree that I say what I in fact do not say, you think you are permitted to continue to believe whatever you want, including believing that I am saying something that I am clearly NOT.  My protests you categorize as 'back-tracking' which is offensive and insulting and completely out of line with the evidence.

And how is this symptomatic of gnostic tactics?  Where is the connection to that?

In order to believe that I mean something other than what I say you have to abandon the laws of language.  Grammar doesn't matter. Vocubulary doesn't matter.  Sentence structure doesn't matter.  Context doesn't matter.

All of the strategies used by billions of reasonable people over thousands of years to correctly interpret the written word is OUT THE WINDOW with you.  Not that I entirely blame you- you are a product of the times- (you asked me to consider that I may be indoctrinated- do you allow the same possibility for yourself?) in that the meaning of a text is believed by many to be derived by the reader rather than the author.  

So, rather than thinking that this issue is a petty bickering, I think this is illustrative of EXACTLY what I was talking about.  I am the author of the first post in this thread.  What did I say and what did I mean?  The words are there to be read by anyone using OBJECTIVE tools of interpretation.

The second post comes quickly and clarifies just one issue.   All the rest of the threads have been consistently re-stating, over and over and over again the premises already established in the first and second post.  

Which plays right into the whole 'aionion' thing.  We CAN DETERMINE WHAT THE WORD MEANS USING OBJECTIVE TOOLS OF INTERPRETATION.  Similar methods will help with the rest of the Scriptures, which before they are anything else, to us, are written words that need to be interpreted.

These tools Tony dismissed as 'human.'  You said that they can't possibly understand the 'scope' of the word.  If objective tools are classified as 'human' and therefore dismissed as inferior, what kind of tools are left?

The opposite of objective is..... ?

Seriously, geegee, if you don't plan on responding to my posts according to what they DO say, don't bother.  We would be playing by different rules.  I think I have to react to your words as though they really mean what they say, and I write with the expectation that they will be understood using 'human' tools of interpretation, which is why I bother to use words at all instead of grunts.  

I do hope that you will actually read what I've said and respond to what I've said.  Why don't you start over and go right back to the very first two posts that I made in this thread and start over.  

Is your methodology actually one that the gnostics employed?  If so, are you ashamed of it?  You seem not to be, and yet offended to be grouped with them, but you are the one doing the grouping.  If your methodology is NOT like those that the gnostics employed, and you do condemn it, how does your method differ?

All these questions are quite distinct from the difference in methods to knowledge between the gnostics and the orthodox Christian church.

Snt.johnny.  I quickly skimmed through the posts and will not be specifically responding to any of that...save maybe a few things.  And i put that "ape" of mine away..you know the one that never makes sense.

I will take your advice and start anew.  I did go to that link you provided and actually read much more of it.  (did you come across the part where it stated that the gnostics were persecuted by christians?  I've read other material that said the same thing...that "christianity" became a persecuting religion)

Anyways... I could not see how that link relates to how i understand and determine things.  You are saying that i use gnostic tactics?  Perhaps you will have to open my blind eyes?

But you want to know my methodology?  If i am objective?

I try to obey a rule.  A rule given by God.  Something is to be established by two or three witnesses.

The resurrected Christ was seen by hundreds of people.  So that gives me a reason to believe its validity.  And that puts much weight on the claims and teachings of Jesus.

But that is not the reason i first became "christian".  Jesus called them blessed who believe without seeing.  Of course i am not implying that there should be no basis/foundation/reason in a belief.  That is not how i undertand that saying of Jesus.  You see, before i had a grasp (i was young) of all the reasons to believe in the Jesus story... when i heard the story told over the pulpit (without the preacher going into all the reasons why we should believe the story) ... faith just entered my heart.  So i believed something was true before i even investigated it...poor me.  But that was me during my young life..just believing everthing people told me because...well, maybe i just thought people were honest?  I think the main reason i believed was because God opened my (spiritual) eyes and my heart to recieve it.  Later on... then i began to question more and more of its trueness... finding myself more "objective" than "subjective".  There was a time that i had wondered whether i should even believe in any of this bible stuff.  But i found that that the objective truth and the subjective experience went hand in hand.

I've read your story when i first joined this site.  And i think you do a swell job when it comes to objectively defending the reason why everyone should believe in the historical Jesus of the christian scriptures.

My other "gnostic" approach is ... i mean my methodology is this...."scripture only"... "Gods word (what is contained in the bible) should be our final authority".  Yes, that is one thing that was stressed during my early religious experience.  I think my later objective approach caused my place of worship to frown on me.  You see, it was one of those tongues speaking movements with the slaying of the spirit and prophetic utterances, etc.  I left because they were way to subjective for me - but they loved the bible and God very much.  (I don't know how you feel about tongues, prophecies, revelations movements  but you would love them because they believe in a God that will burn billions of humans for eternity :D - couldn't resist)

Finally, my approach/methodology in accepting or believing something is influenced by the science(s) field.

So what i am saying is that much of what i believe has been influenced by the well learned folks.  People who have done their homework... people who use good methods and common sense.  But i like to gather information from the opposite side - one believes in the practice of "tongues" the other believes that this practice ended after the first century, etc - to see what kind of support system each utilize.

But my favourite "gnostic" methodology is to allow the word of God to interpret itself.  For example... concerning the word "ainion'... we should get a pretty good picture of what this word means by looking at its usage throughout the scriptures.  And perhaps we will see that the word might define itself.  Sorry that you were offended when i made that statement concerning the non-bias source that you gave about "ainion".  But i have read many writings concerning this word from those bias and non-bias, religous or not religious.  I am sure you have too.  So what is the true definition of that word?  The scholars don't agree.  Some say it means "eternal" and the other says "no, its a period of time - long or short"  Am i showing gnostic methodology because i disagree with your non-bias source concerning the "ainion" question?  

Okay.  Thats it for now.  I thought it would be best to approach your concern in this manner.  Take it, leave it, question it, comment on it - do with this post what you want.  So i do not believe what i believe because i made any of this up myself through private revelation.  I rely on the smarts of others.  And I am glad you left "some" room for the subjective side of things.

So we will continue to disagree with certian things.  I will believe such and such and you will disagree.  If me making the statement that some are "blind" sounds like gnostic tactics to you, then you will first have to point your finger at Paul because it is his statement that i am agreeing with.