Skip to main content

View Diary: The sort of people who'll buy the Schiavo list (401 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Behold the Beast rides... (none)
    ...the black rider is mounted and lifting their banner of hate again, just as it has been lifted so many times throughout history, to put down dissidents and non-cultists.

    Simply put, the Beast is none other than the "Church" itself, the false prophet.  Why can't organized religion understand that THAT is what Jesus was saying when he stormed into downtown Jerusalem and proclaimed:  "Destroy this temple...and he spake of the body."

    ...of the body...not of brick and stone...quite simple...

    Now we get the non-stop persecution of opposing cultists basically:  this church members hates that non-sect church member, or, non-synagogue member, non-mosque member...ad infinitum...ad nauseum...

    Where the fuck will they WAKE UP to the fact that they are persecuting mankind?  ...like the apocalyptic Beast...

    Jesus: "Destroy this church (temple)-- G. of John 2:19

    by The Gnostic on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 04:32:58 PM PST

    •  The Greek is (4.00)
      ekeinos de elegen peri tou naou tou somatos autou.

      Literally, "And this he said concerning the temple of his body."  It is an undisputed text.  All the ancient manuscripts, including those that precede the Council Nicea (that you so vehemently dispute) by two centuries agree.

      DCDemocrat: Higher editorial standards than The New York Times.

      by DCDemocrat on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 05:04:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sup dude. (none)
        There you go again.  And DCDemocrat, you play gotcha politics.

        Well, here's a gotcha.  Haven't you played the game in school where someone says something and then it is completely different after going around the room?

        Selected Verses from the Gospel According to John

        { Yonan Codex Foundation Note: Translated directly into English from the ancient Aramaic, the Khabouris Manuscript, with particular and painstaking fidelity to the preservation of the thought patterns, images, and concept peculiar to Aramaic, the native language of Jesus of Nazareth, and the language in which He delivered His teachings to the world. } Chapter 2

        After this He and His mother and His brothers and His disciples came down to Capernaum, and they were there a few days.
        The Passover of the Jews was near, and He went up to Jerusalem.
        And he found within the Temple, those selling oxen and sheep and doves, and that money-changers were sitting.
        He made Himself a cattle whip (prigla) out of strands (khaolii) and drove everything of theirs (kulhoun), the sheep and the oxen, out of the Temple, and turned over the tables of the money-changers; their money He poured out.
        To those that sold doves He said, "Remove these from here, and do not make of the house of my Father a house of commerce."
        And His disciples remembered that which was written, "Ardor for Your house arouses me." <

        DCDemocrat, the "original Christians were Gnostics, and they, and their original Christian texts were outlawed at the Council of Nicea, by the now-discredited, current version, then how can you claim definitely that Jesus referred to his body that day in the context believed, including with the resurrection inference.

        Maybe Jesus did refer to his body in that context, and he, like us all, are all "sons of God," a Gnostic term that Jesus would commonly say.  But so, referencing his own body in place of the temple, ie. organized religion didn't mean be wasn't criticizing churches, mosques, and otherwise any building with priests claiming to know Gods will.  (And don't tell me, please, that he was racist-like, like many many modern American Christians, condemning just the Jews and THEIR temple -- he was condemning the concept that God can be maintained in any 4 walls, per Gnostic text (and you good man know which one, hint:  it was cited in a movie)).  

        BTW:  What a coincidence.  I just sent off an email to you regarding the Council of Nicea:  basically asking, humbly after all these days since, if you would explain your experiences with your academic collegues on the topic of the Council of Nicea, and here you today doing "Gotcha" -- I forgive you:  maybe please go into c of n for me though pretty please.

        Were the gnostics outlawed per Council of Nicea, and, were they the preceding, 'original' Christians to the later "Orthodox" per Elaine Pagel terminology?

        Jesus: "Destroy this church (temple)-- G. of John 2:19

        by The Gnostic on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 05:44:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Gnostic (none)
          "original Christians were Gnostics."

          That simply is not true.  The apostles were the original Christians, and there is nowhere even a hint of evidence that they were gnostics.  I know you are going to disagree with some curious argument, because facts are an amorphous category in your consciousness.

          DCDemocrat: Higher editorial standards than The New York Times.

          by DCDemocrat on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 05:47:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  DCdemocrat.. (none)
            ..why will you simply not address the fact that the original christians, the gnostics were outlawed at the council of nicea..why will you not admit common historical knowledge..

            please, address that point:  why did modern, "orthodox" christians outlaw the gnostics at the council of nicea?  why won't you address whether that even happened?  what is your agenda?  you know mine.

            Jesus: "Destroy this church (temple)-- G. of John 2:19

            by The Gnostic on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 05:56:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  the Gnostics were outlawed by (none)
              mainline Christianity, but there were a lot of other sects that also were condemned.  Let's explore the possibility they were the original Christians.

              But the fact of the matter is that the original Christians were pious Jewish working class guys.  They weren't Gnostics.  They weren't Arians.  They were Jews who continued to worship in the synagogue until 85 when they were effectively ejected from the synagogue.

              DCDemocrat: Higher editorial standards than The New York Times.

              by DCDemocrat on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 06:08:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well.. (none)
                ..this is like the abortion topic, which I am about to rant and rave about in a diary (I just read about the phenomenon of pharmacists that won't prescribe birth control or morning after pills is growing), we won't come to any agreement.

                Last thing though:  if they were just joe-schoes who just kept on going to the temple after Jesus condemned organized religion and churches and temples in particular, and after organized religion and their government cronies put him to death, well then, we all live on a square earth with stars that circle around us, and Jerry Falwell is the second coming and when he dies, probably any day now, the rapture is going to occur.  (Ironically though, the liberals will be the ones not suffering and who will ascend, and, as Nostradamus says, paraphrasing, 'the rich will be poor, and the poor will be rich.')

                Jesus: "Destroy this church (temple)-- G. of John 2:19

                by The Gnostic on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 07:02:39 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  and.. (none)
            ..of course the apostles were original christians, but who were their contemporaries politically speaking?  More likely the earlier Gnostics because the Orthodox didn't gain power until later, after their politics of martyrdom started to have an effect, especially, yes, around 325 AD, at the Council of Nicea (which you refuse to address).

            Jesus: "Destroy this church (temple)-- G. of John 2:19

            by The Gnostic on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 06:01:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  the Council of Nicea (none)
              I believe, is heavily tied up in a theology of the Church upon which we currently have no foundations for a discussion.  I have avoided it, because I haven't found a place where we could start a conversation.  It has a lot to do with my belief that God lives in the Church, sustains it, teaches it, and does not abandon it.  We just disagree about Nicea and its import, but we don't enjoy enough common suppositions to engage the topic.

              DCDemocrat: Higher editorial standards than The New York Times.

              by DCDemocrat on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 07:31:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  so basically... (none)
                ..no comment.  Sore point, so too bad so sad...oh well.  

                The good news is the common ground:  Jesus was teaching the world about rejecting dogma from organized religion, and looking within the body, within the one atomic plane that makes up God, and looking there for religion, for God.  

                God is the universe and we are a part of God (as was/ is Jesus, so he in fact was/is God...ironic huh?).

                Jesus: "Destroy this church (temple)-- G. of John 2:19

                by The Gnostic on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 07:43:53 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I made a comment (none)
                  and you failed to hear it.  It's your strategy.  Ciao for now.

                  DCDemocrat: Higher editorial standards than The New York Times.

                  by DCDemocrat on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 07:49:10 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's "Chow" in hack-speak. (none)
                    I learned long ago, from the master, Jesus, that simple speaking on topics is best.  Just as he said it, so will I:  Destroy the hierarchical Beast that is organized religion and then you will find God in yourself, in your body.

                    Jesus: "Destroy this church (temple)-- G. of John 2:19

                    by The Gnostic on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 08:00:01 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Incidentally (none)
          it is true that Jesus' language was Aramaic, but it is quite possible, perhaps almost likely, that he spoke Greek.  There was a major international trade route close to Nazareth, and it would have been a good thing for a carpenter's son to speak a language of trade.  But in this case it doesn't matter, because the quote in question is not a comment by Jesus but an interpretation by the evangelist.

          There are some scholars who have speculated that the Gospel of John was written originally in Aramaic and translated into Greek, but most scholars think it was written originally in Greek.  In any case, it was decidedly not written in Elizabethan English.

          DCDemocrat: Higher editorial standards than The New York Times.

          by DCDemocrat on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 05:55:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site