"Paulinian" argument from a "weak atheist"


#1

Greetings again,

I want to say that I’m still “discussing” religious thoughts on another forum which is non religious. Things are getting better, and I don’ t seem to have to “clean up” after the catholic lady who was making up her own religion and calling it catholic anymore. She doesn’t visit that area of the forums as much.

Anyway, there’s a member who said this and I’d like to know how you would help him out with this question… I’m not “cerebral” enough to help him out on my own

SIMSTER SAID:

At one point in my Christian path, I had questioned the vadality of the “Father” that Jesus always mentioned as being the Judaic God. I understand that Jesus was a Jew and probably a Rabbi. Still, as I exhausted the four gospels, had grown a severe disliking for St. Paul, I could see what I thought were major contrasts in Jesus’ message, Paul’s teachings and the message of the Judaic God. I concluded that it was Paul’s teachings that brought the religion back in line with Judaism, if only because Rome could use the teachings about a God of War and still gain the acceptance of the new Christian movement.

I was headed towards Christian Mysticism and discovered the Gnosis (knowledge) teachings. Well, what are left of them. Rome slaughtered the followers of Gnosticism and nearly all of their texts, long before the Council of Nicaea. The teachings are attributed to Jesus, they are similar to the four gospels, there was much more of a “Jesus” feel to them compared to anything that follows the gospels in the canon. Adding everything together, I found Gnosticism to be very convincing as the “truth” of those times. A better record of what the true message was.

When you’ve studied Gnosticism, the contrast between Jesus and the standard Christian teachings become even more apparent. Any serious “seeker” should at least check that out.

So, from the contrasts between Jesus and the Judaic God, between Jesus and Paul’s later teachings, I conclude that Jesus wasn’t speaking of the Judaic God as his Father at all. From the bible, Jesus speaks of how “their” “God” is not his Father. And that their Father is the “devil”. So the Judaic God is evil, according to Jesus; that’s what he was preaching and that’s what got him killed. Jesus said that their God was a liar and a liar from the beginning. How many lies did the Judaic God tell? I don’t have a count but there seems to be quite a few. Also, the fact that a serpant (a variant of Leviathan) represents the Gnostic God, has led some people to believe the exact thing that Fleabay has stated.

I’ve read and heard lots of apologetics about this question. I’d like to read the personal reasoning from any Christian here that’s willing to answer my questions. I appreciate the four gospels and have a great distaste for Paul’s work. However, use what you will to justify the fact that I’m wrong. Forget that I’m a “weak” atheist and understand that as I was once still a believer, I had came to the conclusion that the bible as we know it is not an accurate portrayal of the supposed Christ. It’s not that I don’t know the bible, it’s just that this possibility jumped out at me and grabbed my attention. Since I thought Paul was a twisted criminal and that the Judaic God really is evil, it wasn’t impossible for me to at least entertain the idea.

The assumption is made that Jesus and his Father are real here.

Is it possible that Jesus did not consider the Judaic God to be the his Father?

Could Jesus’ rebellion have been due to his disgust with the worship and bondage of such an evil and false God?

How much of a contrast do you see in the Judaic God and Jesus? Between Jesus’ words and the later teachings of Paul?

Have you ever studied Gnosticism? If so, what are the chances that Gnostics represent the body of Christ more accurately than Paulinian Christianity?

To clarify, there’s an actual Paulinian sect. I’m not referring to them, I call all Christianity "Paulinian’ if it’s origins begin with Rome. Since there are only four gospels in the canon, any Christian division that uses it, or a slight variation, has origins at Rome in my book.


#2

Is it possible that Jesus did not consider the Judaic God to be the his Father?

Not a chance! Jesus was Jew. He respected Moses and even spoke with him and Elias on Mount 'Tabor. He quoted the Hebrew Scriptures and said that they could not be broken. He referred to Abraham as Father Abraham, and said the Hebrew prophets were speaking of Him.

He did not call the Hebrew God the devil but said the Pharisees, who he considered false teachers, were childred of the devil instead of the Hebrew God.

The Catholic faith is not a Paulinian Gospel even by your definition because it did not have its origin at Rome, but at Jeruselem.

The True church of Jesus is the one that has survived as Jesus promised it would, not the Gnostics. If it did not survive it would not be worth following, nor would Jesus, since His prophesies did not pan out He would be just another erroneous man.


#3

the trouble with the true seeker checking out Gnosticism is that their writings are not divinely inspired so it would be a complete waste of time for the sincere person seeking to know and understand Jesus and the will of God. The Jesus muddled seekers perceive in the Gnostic writings that have survived, interpreted through the haze of new age babble that masquerades as thinking, is a construct of the will and desires of those who follow them, not the Jesus who revealed himself to those who witnessed his life, mission, passion and risen self. Seeking anywhere other than those he chose as his witnesses to proclaim his gospel is futile.


#4

What never ceases to amaze me is how people will read anything said by anyone who is not a Catholic and swallow it whole rather than seek out Catholic sources to verify what others with their own agenda have told them. :eek:

Of course modern Gnostics are going to paint themselves as the victims of the Catholic Church. Let them line up behind all the others of their sort who also want to believe that their version of history is the correct one because it might give them some legitimacy.

If you bring all this up with this person, he will probably say that Catholic sources can’t be trusted. In that case, you should ask him why he believes Gnostics sources without blinking an eye? Could it be because it feeds his ego? Well, don’t ask him that or you will get no farther with him. :wink:


#5

Rather than spend potentially fruitless hours of discussion with this person, refer SIMSTER to this two part article on the Gnostic “gospels.”

iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0040a.html

iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0088a.html

If he or she is willing to read them it will at least help to dispel this silly notion that these writings are on par at some level with the Scriptures.Don’t get your hopes up though. Many people who accept this garbage believe it because they want to.

“The Da Vinci Hoax” by Carl Olsen and Sandra Miesel would benefit them as well, since it devotes a large portion of this book to this issue. Here is a link to the author’s webpage which has several articles on this topic. Good luck.

carl-olson.com/abouttdvc.html


#6

gnosticism again?

discussing real Catholic theology with someone who buys into that gutless heretic pipedream would be difficult, i think. we’ll be praying for you.


#7

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.