(1) The world was created by a “substandard” deity, one who was the child of Sophia – that is, the Wisdom of God. (The gnostic’s version of the Holy Spirit.)
(2) He accidentally infused the substandard created beings (read: humans) with a spark of something higher – spirit.
(3) The OT god was in fact this substandard deity (Demiurge, or something like that, is what he’s called).
(4) Salvation can be obtained through knowledge and enlightenment, in a process similar to Hindu meditation.
I can’t remember much more than that. Off to the Catholic Encyclopedia, I suppose…
[/quote]
The doctrine of salvation by knowledge. This definition, based on the etymology
of the word (gnosis “knowledge”, gnostikos, “good at knowing”), is correct as far
as it goes, but it gives only one, though perhaps the predominant, characteristic
of Gnostic systems of thought. Whereas Judaism and Christianity, and almost
all pagan systems, hold that the soul attains its proper end by obedience of mind
and will to the Supreme Power, i.e. by faith and works, it is markedly peculiar to
Gnosticism that it places the salvation of the soul merely in the possession of a
quasi-intuitive knowledge of the mysteries of the universe and of magic formulae
indicative of that knowledge. Gnostics were “people who knew”, and their
knowledge at once constituted them a superior class of beings, whose present
and future status was essentially different from that of those who, for whatever
reason, did not know.
[/quote]
It goes on to say:
This does sound a tad like you, i.e. everyone is a fallen “piece” of God into a world of atoms which provide an amoral context for our morality. Some of the gnostics took that to varying degrees, of course, but you seem to be coming from this realm of thought.
I felt the bedrock of all existence tremble at Polycarp’s analogy of David B.‘s role with that of Jesus’. But, on second thought, as Woody Allen said in a similar situation “I’ve got to pattern my life on Somebody”. Go for it, big guy.
Ah, but now you give yourself away. You seem to have set up for yourself as the important thing being knowing God, at least at some point, else God wouldn’t have bothered telling you that (again, this may be a demon posing as God, of course.) You seem to be implying that salvation does come through knowledge, regardless of whether or not it can be known by the mind (sounds like mysterious knowledge to me). Otherwise, as you say everyone is God (another gnostic belief), on what do you base salvation? Is a person saved merely “re-cognizing” that they are indeed God? Well, this is knowledge again. Also, you do not think living a life of Faith as I have defined it is important, as you seem to be under the impression that this world is at least semi-illusionary – atoms providing an amoral context to act out our morality, without seeing the reality of what one must do to have eternal life.
Libertarian: I think he’s drawing that conclusion from your previous posts that imply that we can somehow obtain Godhood. This might not be what you’re saying, but it’s sure reading that way.
Regarding gnosticism, though… IIRC, gnostics went way past “a world of atoms which provide an amoral context for our morality” and into a classic “matter is evil” approach. Which, if you follow that to its logical conclusion, stands in direct opposition to orthodox Christian belief in a bodily resurrection.
I agree with what Poly said, that Jesus is God. So David had asked then question then if Jesus is God then why pray to Jesus and not just God?
Well I believe Satan hit upon it whether he meant to or not. If we only referenced God as in “Pray to God, ye sinners.” then there would be no discernable difference between Christians and other religious groups that believe in God (Jews being the most prominient). Also, we Christians generally say “Jesus is coming soon.” and while it is God (at least one part of God that is returning) saying “God is coming soon.” sounds a bit off (at least from the Christian POV).
I personally do not spend a lot of time distinguishing between the three parts as I pray, I mostly interchange them, though I do end “In Jesus Name” as using God instead would almost sound like I was using his name in vain.
Okay, the easy answer David B. Just 'Cause.
Likely most Christians do not give it a thought. They just do as they are told. I do give it a bit of thought, but do not spend much time trying to figure out which name to use.
One reason to pray to Jesus is because he’s more tangible. God himself is a pretty abstract conept. Praying to God about most earthly matters is like asking the President to fix a streetlight.
God is kind of a big picture sort of guy, the elephant gun you save for extremem circumstances.
Jesus on the other hand is God made man. Jesus knows what it’s like to have a hangover or bad breath. Jesus wet the bed as a kid, felt awkward, had gas, got hungry, etc.
In short, Jesus is a regular guy, and you can identify with him. Presumably he can identify with you and your earthly problems a little bit better than the God-as-creator-of-the universe-aspect.
The reality of the situation is supposed to be that you can pray either to Jesus, or the Big abstract guy for whatever you want to say with equal facility. In all aspects, he/she is actually the same and understands equally well. The advantage of course is to the prayee, who finds it eaier to speak his/her mind to someone who it’s easier to identify with.
It’s all basic PR/advertising stuff. You want to put a likable guy out front so you don’t scare away the customers. That’s why we don’t to pray to the Angel of Death. Who wants to hang out with that guy?
More and more lately I find myself praying to “Father God”, in the name of the Son. And it seems to be like that for a lot of Christians when they are praying.
I think the seeming emphasis on Jesus is because he is the person of the Godhead who achieved our salvation for us. It was God the Son who became human, lived here and died for us. It is faith in him that takes us ultimately to God the Father. (“No one comes to the father but by me.” “There is no other name given under heaven by which we may be saved.”) And a lot of what you see in out there is referring, in one way or another, to salvation. So it only makes sense to put Jesus in the forefront of that. It is through him that the connection is made to the rest of the Godhead.
We can (and do), but not through knowledge. Only through faith. Perhaps JMullaney is confusing apprehension with comprehension. We apprehend God with our brains, yes, but we comprehend Him only with our hearts, where He dwells.
For those not aware, I am a very devout Southern Baptist type.
David,
I have said numerous times before and I will continue to say, that a lot of Christians (not on this board, but in regular life) do not spend much if any time thinking about what they are told to do, they just do it. I believe fully in having faith but I also believe that it does a diservice to our faith for people to blindly follow whatever their pastor/teacher/leader tells them. Blind faith can easily lead to such situations as David Koresh or Jim Jones or other cults. People should take what they are taught and compare it with the Bible and what they know of God. If these things do not match, then the leader is wrong.
I mean, if we are to follow the Bible completely, Jesus himself gives us the model prayer. It starts Our Father who art in Heaven, and never once mentions Jesus or the Holy Spirit by name.
Jesus is one in the same as God. Its the same “person” (for lack of a better word) there. God showed himself through three contactings. Jesus is God. If someone says Jesus and they are a Christian they are refering to God as well because its the same person. However, if someone says God hard telling who or what tye are refering to. Many people have their own “god” now adays. Admittedly, some people who accept a Jesus deny his divinity, but many fewer than those that say God and are refering to something else.
