Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    
    
    Without Judas Iscariot there would have been no crucifixion and
    no sacrifice for our sins by Jesus?
    
    Carole (not that I embrace this belief of salvation, but I *was*
            raised a Catholic!)

    My belief is that Jesus completely forgave and loved Judas Iscariot and
    understood the 'role' he played.
    
    Ro
    

    I think to little is made of the possible motivation for what Judas
    did. Two of the gospels (Luke and John) say that Satan sort of took
    over. The other two do not state a reason (in my brief study) but talk
    a little about Jesus getting his feet washed with expensive oils and
    that one (or more) of the disciples were upset by it. Wasn't Judas a
    Zealot? I suspect that he was (one of) the one upset.

    I suspect that it was because of this and perhaps other things that
    Judas decided that Jesus had gotten to caught up in his own press
    as it were. I think that Judas may have expected Jesus to create a
    kingdom on earth right then and there. He could have become upset that
    Jesus was starting to act differently than he expected and desired. 
    Thus he was only betraying someone who he felt had first betrayed him.
    This is a common cause of betrayal. Perhaps if he's better understood 
    Jesus' mission and purpose in the first place this would not have 
    happened.

    But of course if not Judas it would have had to be someone. Judas 
    may even have been picked for his volatile personality and zealous
    nature for the very purpose of this happening. I don't judge Judas
    to  harshly. I think he realized what he had done in the end. His
    intention was good but his understanding and methods were poor.

    		Alfred

Note 406.3

Hello Alfred,

>    Wasn't Judas a
>    Zealot? I suspect that he was (one of) the one upset.

No, at least, Judas Iscariot was not clearly a Zealot.  However, it is
likely that Simon the Zealot was a Zealot. ;-}

I have also read others who've speculated that Judas was trying to force
Jesus' hand in bringing about the Reign of God.

I've heard also that Judas may have been a member of the deadly Sicarii party,
and that that may be from whence the name Iscariot came.  Iscariot, according
to a class I took, is not a family name nor does it refer to the name of a
town or province.

Peace,
Richard

>No, at least, Judas Iscariot was not clearly a Zealot

	I have this faint memory that Iscariot referes to politics of some
	sort. I know that Simon the Zealot was a zealot but I also faintly
	remember hearing that others in Jesus' followings were zealots.

	An other speculation I've heard is that Judas expected Jesus to 
	call down angels or out armies if taken by force. 

			Alfred

    
    According to certain Gnostics, Judas was the "ONLY" disciple who
    carried out his role faithfully and completely.  Jesus knew Judas was
    who he was and would do what he did, when he choose him as a disciple. 
    They equate his "service to God's plan" to be equatable with that of
    Satan, whom God ordered/allowed/commission to subvert those whom he
    could deceive.  Also the reasoning behind it is that God has on several
    occasions used the wicked to serve his purposes...even Paul spoke of
    two people who were [turned over to Satan for disciplinary lessons], I
    forget the exact quote...so there's two different aspects of the
    purpose of the wicked.
    
    Playtoe

    We should not let God's plan be a basis for justifying evil, an error
    of the Gnostics.
    
    God created us with free will and that means we all, including Judas,
    have/had freedom to choose to do good or evil. 
    
    God assures us throughout scripture that good will triumph over evil
    and that the Holy Spirit will work among us to bring this about for
    those who turn to God. We humans cannot fully comprehend how true this
    is or see the full pattern. 
    
    Judas had already made his choices which God fully respected. Judas was
    allowed to betray Jesus, he was not given that evil act as a mission of
    God's will. God can read hearts and, by the Holy Spirit, utilizes all,
    good and bad, to realize the full ends of God's plan of salvation. The
    fact that God is Lord and can make good come from evil does not justify
    the choice of any human (or Satan and the fallen angels) to disobey
    God.
    
    To justify Judas' act in this way is deny our free choice, the need for
    salvation through Jesus Christ, and to justify evil as actually being
    good. 
    
    Although no one knows the heart of Judas as he hung himself (perhaps
    his last thoughts were of repentance), the act itself indicates that
    he had become a person in despair. This means that he was without 
    hope, a Christian virtue and gift from God. 
    
    Judas was shown to be a person who valued money over people; he was
    the treasurer and, I believe a thief from the treasury. He was likely
    the disciple to complain about the cost of the oil used to anoint
    Jesus prior to the Passion. He accepted money for the betrayal also.
    He was willing to sell Jesus out in order to obtain some unspecified
    worldly objective. All that Jesus taught probably seemed to Judas to
    be the wrong way to go about it; "Blessed are the poor in spirit...."
    did not make sense. Judas probably would have prefered, "Blessed are
    those who strive for the top." Values were reversed in his life, with
    the materialistic and powerful as being on top and people (being weak
    creatures) on the bottom.
    
    After his betrayal, Jesus was no longer in Judas' life and with the
    light gone, Judas suddenly saw that all that he had valued, the money
    and power, was worthless. He wished to be rid of what he now knew was
    evil and tried to rid himself of it by throwing back the money and
    claiming lack of responsibility.
    
    At this point, Judas had an opportunity to repent. He knew that he had
    done something evil, but he denied his own responsibility and rather
    than turn to God admitting evil and asking for forgiveness, he
    dispaired and, without hope, hung himself. Perhaps his pride was in
    his way and he could not either admit that Jesus was Lord or that he
    (Judas) had sinned.
    
    The drama and choices of Judas are also our choices when we sin, as we
    do. We sometimes try to justify our sinful acts, back away from
    responsibility for our actions, run away or become engrossed in a 
    distraction, become prideful, or question if God REALLY said not to
    do it (such as the serpent's interjection of doubt when tempting Eve.)
    Prolonged in this state, we lose hope and fall into the darkness of
    dispair. Like Judas, we do not find rest unless we accept God's 
    invitation of repentance and conversion.
    
    Mary
    

    
    
    I guess I still don't understand this premise Mary.  How could
    Jesus have died for your sins and therefore given you salvation
    if he had not been betrayed?
    
    Carole

               There is some indication that Judas was a member of a sect 
called Zealots.  Their thoughts about the coming Messiah was that he should
take control of the government and reign for 1000 years.  It is thought that
Judas might have been trying to "force" Jesus into assuming what they thought
was his role.


Dave

    Re 7
    
    I think you're being too sentimental...no offence intended.  
    
>    We should not let God's plan be a basis for justifying evil, an error
>    of the Gnostics.
    
    On the contrary, it is a fact that Judas was used to bring about good. 
    Jesus "chose" him as a disciple...not if that doesn't justify the
    existance of "evil" then what?  I think the issue you've become hung up
    on is judging what is good and evil, The Knowledge of Good and Evil,
    and have not overcome that with the Knowledge of Life.  Good and evil
    are reality, but together in interaction they create life...
    
    Some things may hurt your feelings, but God doesn't care about our
    "hurt feelings", God is not a respecter of persons.  God is concerned
    with obedience and disobedience of his Will/Plan.  "Ignorance of the
    law is of no consequence".  
    
    It's hard, believe me, to elevate our Minds, because of fleshly and
    emotional weights upon the spirit, but we must arise.
    
    Playtoe

    re: .-1
    
    >Some things may hurt your feelings, but God doesn't care about our
    >"hurt feelings", God is not a respecter of persons.  God is
    >concerned with obedience and disobedience of his Will/Plan.
    
    Why, I think God moans over hurt feelings, that God respects those
    created in God's image (that is, all of us!).  God wishes us to become
    all that it is possible for us to become - anything less than that 
    causes God to ache.
    
    "Jesus wept."
    

    I believe God sees us as perfect as he created us; it is through our
    own eyes that we judge ourselves as imperfect and thus so act...
    
    IMHO,
    
    Ro   

     re; 11
    
    I'm trying to say that in regard to God's Plan/Will, commandments, and
    principles, things happen and they happen for the best to those who
    love God.  Oftentimes we don't understand the righteousness and justice
    of the things we see happen to others and to ourselves.  As a result we
    may feel hurt or that some injustice has been done, and blame it on
    God; "He could have prevented this or that, why did he let it happen?"
    
    We can have all the hurt feelings we want, but that won't change one
    jot or tittle, which must be.  On the other hand, once you come into
    the knowledge and understanding of the Will and knowledge of God,
    you'll have no more hurt feelings.  Jesus' feelings weren't hurt, per
    se, his tears were tears of compassion.  Jesus did not feel an
    injustice had been done to the people of Jerusalem.  He was feeling
    "sorry/sorrow", but not "hurt" per se...and there's a difference.
    
    We must not lean to our own understanding, but to the understanding of
    God.  I don't think I've expressed this clearly...can someone help me
    with this.
    
    Playtoe

    .8
    
    Carole,
    
        Jesus, second person of the Trinity before the creation of the world,
    would not have had to die for sins if sin had never entered the world.
    Christ would have still been Lord and all, as before the Fall, would
    have been made in Him and for Him as scripture tells us. Christ would
    have simply been our Lord and we his obedient people. 
    
        The Fall, provoked by Satan and accepted by Adam and Eve, brought 
    sinfulness into the world and made it necessary for Christ to die for
    us. God's love is total in making this supreme sacrifice of Himself.
    God could foresee the Fall and knew it was a consequence of allowing
    us to have free will, but again in His love, He did not hold back for
    His own sake.
    
        God did not create evil and He does not inflict it on us as He goes 
    about bringing us life and salvation. Once in the world, and available
    to us by free choice, it continues to exist throughout the ages. Evil
    is not a 'thing' in itself and therefore it is not something created;
    it is a state or relationship of being turned away from God in some
    respect - out of union with Him.
    
        Jesus came to triumph over all sin and evil, not to glorify it,
    not to thank it, not to admire it, not to be happy that it was around,
    not to be happy any of God's creatures had sinned or accepted it,
    but to crush it and to fully and completely make it's death null and
    void. Jesus never gave evil the time of day; all of his attention was
    on the good which he was here to do and on the Father. 
    
        As the Way, the Truth, and the Life, Jesus is all that we need to
    be restored in the union God wishes with His creatures. Jesus is
    full union with the Father. Satan is ultimate disunity with God; Judas
    in his free will acted out a full rejection of God by his betrayal of
    Christ. Judas, in effect, warred against Christ with his disobedience;
    Jesus fully allowed Judas that choice. 
    
        All the sin of the world, which Jesus accepted, could not crush Him. 
    Christ did not fight against his Passion and by allowing it He took away 
    it's force and power forever and triumphed in His Resurrection.
    
        Satan wants us to separate us from God's Truth and there are many
    ways he tries to do this. One way is by making evil and sin seem to
    be 1) overpowering, 2) glamorous, 3) interesting, 4) a vital element
    in God's plan, 5) relative, or 6) non-existant (partial list, I'm
    sure). 
    
        The Gnostics, among other errors or perhaps due to them, accepted
    evil as some kind of ultimate agent for good. This gives Satan a 
    legitimacy that is not due and allows other errors to be nurtured.
    It opens the door for accepting all sin and evil because it, too,
    probably has some positive role, and (another error) who are we to
    judge, anyway. 
    
        Peace of Jesus,
    
        Mary
    

    I recently read that there is a story that early in the career of
    Leonardo da Vinci, he was painting a picture of Christ and found a
    profoundly beautiful young male to model for his portrait of Jesus.
    Many years later, Leonardo was painting a picture that included Judas. 
    He walked through the streets of Florence looking for the perfect
    person to play the great betrayer.  Finally he found someone dark-looking
    enough, evil-seeming enough to do the job.  He went up to the man to
    approach him to do the modeling - the man looked at him and said, "You
    don't remember me, but I know you.  Years ago, I was the model for your
    picture of Jesus."
    
    

    Re: 14
    
>        The Gnostics, among other errors or perhaps due to them, accepted
>    evil as some kind of ultimate agent for good. This gives Satan a 
>    legitimacy that is not due and allows other errors to be nurtured.
>    It opens the door for accepting all sin and evil because it, too,
>    probably has some positive role, and (another error) who are we to
>    judge, anyway. 
    
    I don't fully comprehend how SOME/CERTAIN Gnostic sects felt about the
    utility of evil, but I'm beginning to.  It has much to do with the
    "complementarity" of opposing forces.  For example, if the Bible
    teaches us to hate this world and that "no flesh shall enter into the
    kingdom of heaven," that we must overcome the lust/desires of the
    flesh...then some Gnostics felt that in order to do this, one must
    subject oneself to all the experiences in the world and indulge in all
    the lust/desires of the flesh, and through it all maintain trust and
    faith in God.  If one hasn't tested oneself in various situations and
    conditions, or been tried, then how can one REALLY know one has
    overcome?  Has one REALLY overcome a thing merely be avoiding that
    thing?  Surely as long as it does not confront you you are safe, but
    what will you do when confronted?  
    
    We find a few examples of this sort of behavior, of "indulgence", in
    Lot, "He had the filthy conversation of the Sodomites, but vexed his
    soul each night".  Also Paul, who mentions a long list of situations
    and circumstances he we in, but brought through it all.  
    
    We call things evil, but are they really evil...even of Murder, though
    we think it evil to do it, of the deceased (regardless how the died) it
    is written in Isaiah (I believe) "None consider that they are taken
    away by God, from trouble to come, and are received into heavenly
    places."  Surely all Christians or godly people don't die of natural
    causes, but when it's their time to go it's time to go.  Consider
    this!  How would you feel, if like Pharoah whose heart was hardened
    against doing the will of God, if God hardened a godly person's heart
    say to kill a righteous person because it was that person's time to go,
    but the godly person because of God now faces life in prison?  Perhaps
    the wicked were really made for the wicked day!  
    
    We must not dwell upon the knowledge of good and evil, but on the
    knowledge of life.
    
    Playtoe

    Steve, the Gnostic heresy leads us to just what you outline.  Let's
    sample things that are not of God, so that we can say that we've
    overcome them.  
    
    Turns out that this is contrary to what the Bible consistantly tells us
    to do.  The Law was created to keep the Jews from doing that.  The
    Gospels reinforce that.  One key verse, Romans 12:1-2 tells us to
    "offer our bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God.  Do
    not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the
    renewal of your mind,..."   We can't be involved in sin and the
    patterns of the world, TO THE BEST OF OUR ABIILITY, and claim to serve
    God as well.  God is holy.  We are to strive to become like Him, not to
    muck around in the things that are not pleasing to Him.
    
    Gnostics claim to have a "special knowledge" - the root of the word
    Gnostic, that adds to or even corrects scripture.  That is why it is
    called a heresy.  If the scriptures - the Bible as canonized - has
    authority, then there can't be truth that contradicts what is in the
    Scriptures.  
    
    For example, Leviticus 19:11 says "Do not steal, do not lie, do not
    deceive one another".  Pretty simple.  Other "knowledge" might tell us
    to lie conveniently or experience deception, so we can overcome it. 
    God's way is to not lie, not steal, and not decieve one another.  Our
    choice.
    
    Hope this helps.
    
    Regards
    
    Don

    
    RE: .14 
    
    Hi Mary,
        
    >    Jesus, second person of the Trinity before the creation of the world,
    >would not have had to die for sins if sin had never entered the world.
    
    Ok.
    
    >Christ would have still been Lord and all, as before the Fall, would
    >have been made in Him and for Him as scripture tells us. Christ would
    >have simply been our Lord and we his obedient people. 
    
    Ok.
    
    >    The Fall, provoked by Satan and accepted by Adam and Eve, brought 
    >sinfulness into the world and made it necessary for Christ to die for
    >us. God's love is total in making this supreme sacrifice of Himself.
    >God could foresee the Fall and knew it was a consequence of allowing
    >us to have free will, but again in His love, He did not hold back for
    >His own sake.
    
    Yes, this is the scenario we are discussing here.  This is the scenario
    into which Judas Iscariot *and* Jesus Christ were born.  The stage
    was already set.
    
    >    God did not create evil and He does not inflict it on us as He goes 
    >about bringing us life and salvation. Once in the world, and available
    >to us by free choice, it continues to exist throughout the ages. Evil
    >is not a 'thing' in itself and therefore it is not something created;
    >it is a state or relationship of being turned away from God in some
    >respect - out of union with Him.
    
    OK, I can accept this is how you see it.
    
    >    Jesus came to triumph over all sin and evil, not to glorify it,
    >not to thank it, not to admire it, not to be happy that it was around,
    >not to be happy any of God's creatures had sinned or accepted it,
    >but to crush it and to fully and completely make it's death null and
    >void. Jesus never gave evil the time of day; all of his attention was
    >on the good which he was here to do and on the Father. 
    
    You still have not said anything that changes the fact that Jesus had
    a mission to accomplish and to do that, he had to be betrayed.
    
    >    As the Way, the Truth, and the Life, Jesus is all that we need to
    >be restored in the union God wishes with His creatures. Jesus is
    >full union with the Father. Satan is ultimate disunity with God; 
    >Judas in his free will acted out a full rejection of God by his betrayal 
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >of Christ. Judas, in effect, warred against Christ with his disobedience;
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >Jesus fully allowed Judas that choice. 
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    If Judas had chosen not to betray Jesus, how would salvation have
    occurred, since the Fall had already happened and humankind was
    living in sin?
        
    >    All the sin of the world, which Jesus accepted, could not crush Him. 
    >Christ did not fight against his Passion and by allowing it He took away 
    >it's force and power forever and triumphed in His Resurrection.
   
    Ok, I understand that this is the way you see it, but it does not
    answer my questions.
     
    >    Satan wants us to separate us from God's Truth and there are many
    >ways he tries to do this. One way is by making evil and sin seem to
    >be 1) overpowering, 2) glamorous, 3) interesting, 4) a vital element
    >in God's plan, 5) relative, or 6) non-existant (partial list, I'm
    >sure). 
    
    I don't understand what point  you are trying to make with this and
    how it relates to my questions?
    
    >    The Gnostics, among other errors or perhaps due to them, accepted
    >evil as some kind of ultimate agent for good. This gives Satan a 
    >legitimacy that is not due and allows other errors to be nurtured.
    >It opens the door for accepting all sin and evil because it, too,
    >probably has some positive role, and (another error) who are we to
    >judge, anyway. 
    
    
    I guess, Mary, that it just doesn't make sense to me to *not* see
    how Judas was fulfilling a needed role in this who 'passion play'.
    
    Carole    
    

    RE: 17
    
    Hi, Don!
    
>    Steve, the Gnostic heresy leads us to just what you outline.  Let's
>    sample things that are not of God, so that we can say that we've
>    overcome them.  
    
    Okay, so what would we say about Peter's "blanket of unclean meats"
    experience?  To which God states, "Call thou nothing I have created
    unclean"...I'm pointing to the statement you've made "sample THINGS not
    of God", is there any THING not of God?  Or is the Christian way a
    matter of attitude and perspective?  Did not Solomon speak of "A time
    for everything under the sun"?  Does not Paul say, "Nothing is evil
    except that which a man esteemeth as being evil", and again, "All
    things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient.  All
    things are lawful unto me, but I will not be brought under the power of
    any."...I think this latter statement is the epitome of the Gnostic
    position under discussion.
    

>   One key verse, Romans 12:1-2 tells us to
>  "offer our bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God.  Do
>  not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the
>  renewal of your mind,..."   We can't be involved in sin and the
 
    If the scripture says, "flesh and bone shall not enter into the kingdom
    of heaven" and again, "no flesh shall be justified", and it also says
    "there is a natural body and there is a spiritual body," wouldn't it be
    safe to conclude the "bodies as living sacrifices" refers to the
    spiritual body?  Furthermore, "but be transformed by the renewal of
    your mind," is this not more a support for the Gnostic's position than
    against them?
    
>    For example, Leviticus 19:11 says "Do not steal, do not lie, do not
>    deceive one another".  Pretty simple. 
    
    Are these sins of the natural/physical body or of the spirit of men?
    
    The defilement of men, is that a PHYSICAL defilement or is it
    SPIRITUAL?  Doesn't Jesus say, "Nothing coming from without a man going
    into  him can defile him, but that which cometh out of a man defileth
    him...from whence cometh lying, deceiving, murderers", because God
    doesn't lie, steal or murder, and to do so defiles the temple.
    
    I don't think the Gnostic position was to be of evil dispositions, but
    it was to more of like putting themselvs to the test...They didn't go
    around killing and stealing and deceiving people...but they didn't lead
    sheltered lives either!  Like Paul, he didn't lead a very sheltered
    life, but was constantly involved in warfare against the principalities
    of evil and spiritual wickedness.   
    
    Playtoe

    
    
    The Gnostic's didn't claim to have any "special" knowledge as such,
    the term Gnostic is from Gnosis, meaning "knowledge", implying that God
    grants each person a "revelation" and understanding of his word, such
    that we all become "brethren" in the faith.  At any given meeting of
    the Gnostics, any one of them was considered able to lead the group or
    speak revelationary wisdom from God.  
    
    On the other hand, the Roman Catholic church, called them "heretics",
    claiming that only the Pope/Bishop could affirm a true revelation from
    God...as such, if the individual's personal revelation disagreed with
    what the RC church had in mind they were called "heretics"...and
    subsequently persecuted and killed, as in the case of all the Disciples
    and early Christians (Gnostics).
    
    I'm reminded, also, that the same group which called the Gnostics
    heretics, also called a few others heretics, which we find today were
    actually correct...for instance Copernicus(sp?).  And also, the same
    group which called the Gnostics "heretics", performed MANY acts
    contrary to true Christian obedience to God, socalled in the NAME of
    God...so it behooves me to question the validity of their assessment of
    Gnostic beliefs and interpretations of scripture.  
    
    In order for a person, any person, to speak wisely from the position of
    self, on matters of Gnostic beliefs, one should have studied and
    affirmed or disaffirmed those beliefs THEMSELVES, and not be repeating
    hearsay, in which case, if one has not studied for SELF, one should
    state the sources from which they are quoting or have received the
    interpretation of scripture...and not say that what was given to them
    by men is a revelation of the Holy Spirit of God.  
    
    Paul says, "We do not follow blindly after highly devised fables, but
    speak of what WE'VE tasted and felt of the Word of God."
    
    Personally, I find a measure of truth in this particular Gnostic
    belief, from my personal experiences in life.  On numerous occasions,
    I've found that, having succombed to temptations, but in due time
    repented and asked for mercy and forgiveness, that I have ultimately
    been strengthen and in Mind "renewed" in faith.  That it is a
    "principle" of sort Gnostic sect, is therefore not surprising...it is
    true as a concept, but strange as a conscious doctrine.  I'm kinda of
    the opinion that the particular sects of Gnostics who were of this
    belief were perhaps part of an Initiatory Rites organization/school. 
    As such schools were abundant in those times.  It could possibly be
    that Christians of a certain kind and level of attainment in faith were
    Initiated into this "sect" and our history books simply fail to mention
    this aspect of Gnosticism.
    
    I know that if I sit at home, and go to church on Sunday's and live a
    most quiet and sheltered life, I as a person have not grown one iota in
    faith, for faith without works is dead, and unless I go out into the
    world and face the temptations (sometimes I stumble, but thanks to God
    I never fall) I can not overcome my infirmities.  As Jesus said, "NO
    MAN taking to thought alone, can increase his stature [in God]".
    
    So I don't know...you can call whomever you want a "heretic", but I
    personally, don't speak on what I haven't tried for myself or at least
    have had happen to me in my life.  In my experience, it never fails
    that as soon as I start quoting other's "conclusions" I get shot down,
    only when I don't verify what they say in my own mind..."Study to show
    thyself approved, rightly dividing the Word of Truth, a workman who
    needeth not be ashamed", and the only way to do this is by verifying
    things for YOUR SELF...so if you refuse to read or listen to what
    other's (Gnostics for example) are saying, how do you stand as a
    "workman" and "steward of the faith"?  How can you uphold, how can you 
    guide, others in the faith based upon "hearsay"?  It's impossible...
    
    AND, if you have come to a "personal" revelation of God's Word in your
    life, then you have effectively become a "Gnostice One"!  Even the POPE
    can't take that faith away from you, and that's why the Gnostics were
    persecuted and killed...The RC Church feared that if these "Gnostics"
    were allowed to spread their beliefs everyone would be independent and
    free...and Ceasar would loose his hold on the people.  Are we still
    afraid of Ceasar?
    
    Playtoe, In the Spirit of Truth
    

    The issue of personal revelation is one where there are risks.  Steve,
    in your history, you talked about the RC church condemning anything
    that didn't agree with them. They did that, but that was a political
    act.  If you had substituted the Bible for RC church, then it would be
    on target.  The Gnostics claimed personal revelation that had equal
    validity with the Bible, and that is a problem for me.  Lots of room
    for error.  
    
    My basic position is that the Bible claims to be God's revelation of
    truth to us.  If something contradicts the Bible, how can it be true? 
    This is very true of personal revelation.  I also take the Bible pretty
    straightforward.  For example, Peter's revelation about eating meats
    says to me that God showed him that the Jewish customs should not be
    required for Christians.  The Gospel was made open to non-Jews.  That
    was the message.
    
    Sin turns out to be a spiritual issue.  Clearly we sin in our heart,
    and it becomes visible in what we do.  Sin isn't physical or spiritual
    - it is both.  Offering our bodies as living sacrifices refers to our
    behavior while we are alive - that all that we do needs to be done out
    of a desire to please God.   If our Spirit is right, actions will
    follow.  We act out of love for Him.  Tough standard, but
    I didn't write the book.
    
    Regards
    
    Don
    

    Re: last few
    
    I agree with Don's responses.
    
    The Gnostic writings are not only opposite of the New Testament 
    writings, but also of God's Word in the Old Testament. What they
    propose also contradicts Christ's life of self-denial and sacrifice
    which was also to be an example to Christians. 
    
    Gnostics want to have their cake and eat it too. They DID claim
    "special knowledge" and promoted that knowledge as being 'esoteric'
    for only a few; it was usually obtained through initiation into a 
    secret sect. The rituals and practices of some of the gnostic sects 
    included ritualistic orgies and other rituals which can easily be 
    related to some Satanic rituals.
    
    The Bible is full of admonitions not to give in to those practices.
    Once we become Christian then we are clearly told not to give in to 
    temptation, but to resist it. Christians may fall along the way and 
    need to repent, but they are NEVER told that they should throw themselves 
    into sin as some type of "self-test". 
    
    Christians are expected to know both what is and is not pleasing to
    God; they find this in Scripture and the teachings of our Church.
    It is enough of a test on Christians to be tempted throughout their
    life; our inner desires alone tell us how we're doing in the 'test'.
    Why would it be logical for a Christian, knowing of a personal inner
    sinful desire, to deliberatly commit the sin as a 'test'. For one
    thing, such a 'test' could not be 'passed' since the person sinned!
    
    The only valid 'test' would be for a person to know the Will of God
    and then do their best to fulfill it; if they consistantly succeeded
    to reject the inner sinful desire then they would have met their
    'test'. If not, then it would be something to continue to take to the
    Lord. It is well-noted by Christians throughout the ages that even
    the inner desire for such a sin, when consistantly resisted, results
    in a decrease and even total removal of the sinful desire.
    
    It is better to be a hermit, if that's what it takes, than to go to
    Hell. Satan will never triumph if a person truely wishes to make a
    stand against sin and maintains strength in Christ. Constant prayer
    and the strength of church community life and the sacraments are needed
    to resist and open the door for Jesus to win the battle.
    
    Neither Christ nor the Divinely inspired writers of scripture, say it 
    is easy to do; we are only assured that if we persist in our attempts 
    then Christ will win the battle and we will be transformed into His 
    likeness.
    
    The gnostic writings certainly cannot be supported by the overriding
    teachings of both the Old and New Testaments. Any scripture which
    can be cited in support of the gnostic approach has to be taken out of
    context and misinterperted; also, a lot of other text has to be ignored
    outright.
    
    Something is being GREATLY and very SADLY missed by gnostics (past and
    present). The truth is that God would absolutely rush (Divine
    Impatience!) to fill our heart's desire if our heart would wish for 
    what God Wills for us!  What God wishes to give, not only in the next
    life, but also this life, is better and more abundant than what we can
    even concieve. For us to recieve it, however, we have to trust that
    God will and can provide and we must let go of those things which are
    not His Will.
    
    Peace of Jesus,
    
    Mary
    

    re: 21
    
    It remains to shown to me that Gnostic interpretations are
    "contradictions" of God's revelation of truth.  I also suggest that
    before you begin to write off the Gnostics, you read and study them for
    yourself and not take the word of others...it's noted in the
    introduction to many of the Gnostic works how Bishops and Popes not a
    few "exagerated, distorted, and misrepresented" Gnostic beliefs and
    intentions.  
    
    You say you take the Bible pretty straightforward, how do you know that
    that's how it is TRULY meant to be taken.  If your approach is true,
    than how can the interpretation be "hid from the wise and revealed unto
    babes."  
    
>    straightforward.  For example, Peter's revelation about eating meats
>    says to me that God showed him that the Jewish customs should not be
>    required for Christians.  The Gospel was made open to non-Jews.  That
>    was the message.
    
    You imply "God changes his mind", one thing for Jews, something else
    for others.  I don't believe this.  Which is why I can relate to a
    Gnostic explanation of how the "Laws of Moses" (including food
    prohibitions) are not God's laws, but Moses' laws.  Even God says,
    concerning "divorcment", "I suffered Moses to give you that because of
    the hardness of mens heart", but God Himself, didn't give us that.
    
    Being able to understand scripture is more complicated than a "simple
    and straightforward" approach...and that's for sure, Don.
    
>    of a desire to please God.   If our Spirit is right, actions will
>    follow.  We act out of love for Him.  Tough standard, but
>    I didn't write the book.
    
    You make it sound as if you've got it down pat!  "Please God", this is
    precisely why the Gnostic concept of personal revelations as valid
    rings true to me..."to the Master a servent stands or falls."  The POPE
    doesn't need to validate a man's revelation.  A minister doesn't need
    to validate a member's revelation.  "Let every man be a liar, but God
    be true," that's a Gnostic validation.
    
    "If our spirit is right"...sounds scary!  What MAN is to judge this, on
    God's behalf?  Did God every say ANY MAN was to do so?  Moses pleaded
    for his people...Jesus pleaded for his people...and that's the
    Christian way.  What man among us able to judge the rightness or
    wrongness of other's than himself?  I don't know, but I don't think
    it's fair to sit back unwilling to examine new ideas as if we have
    already found that TRUE meaning of God's word...nor is it safe to sit
    in the proverbial "comfort zone"...it could become the "twilight zone"! 
    Just kidding...
    
    Playtoe

    Re: 22
    
    The Gnostic's, in general, are no different from Modern Christians. 
    You talk about the Gnostics for "writings" and practices and rituals
    perceived as opposite to "God's Word"...but what about certain modern
    Christian churches or sects...and surely you can't blame that on the
    Gnostic's too!  If we be fair, and equal, how you've saw fit to reject
    Gnosticism as a whole based upon the perceived error of a few, would
    also cause you to reject all modern forms Christianity...but you don't
    do that!  Why?  I can relate certain modern church practices to Satanic
    practices...I could say the Pope's authorization of "African Slavery"
    was Satanic.  Or more recently, "The Pope's and Reagon's conspiracy to
    hasten the demise of communism" as reported in TIME, was satanic.  But
    we can't say that, not because of anything except that we don't know
    what God has planned or intended...."Eye has not seen, ear has not
    heard, nor has it entered into the hearts of men, what God has instore
    for those that love Him", so how are we to say FOR SURE what is the
    right interpretation...we can't...we need to try the spirit by the
    spirit, not be rationalizations, and logic...or prejudices and fears.
    
>    The Bible is full of admonitions not to give in to those practices.
    
    I don't recall the word "Gnostic" ONE TIME in the scriptures!
    
    I'm sorry but I think it's unfruitful to discuss the validity of
    Gnostic concepts any further, it's only leading to "contentions" and
    "strifes"...however, I reserve the right to input the information as it
    is "Christian Perspectives".  Furthermore, if you have disagreements
    with Gnostic conceptions you should provide your specific proofs, and
    not resort to the slanderous statements of others as your weapons.  I'm
    not offended, but it is not my way to debate "disbelievers"...I offer
    information, if it helps you fine, if it doesn't leave it alone,
    because it just might help someone else...
    
    Playtoe, In the Spirit of Truth
    

    
    What I'm saying in 24 is basically this.  Instead of trying to convince
    a person that they are wrong for believing in a certain doctrine.  You
    need to show the person that belief is wrong.  And that must be done
    specifically, and not generally..."because the bible says so" just
    doesn't get it!  You must show the verses, and the interpretation.
    
    For instance, Don showed some scripture, but I responded with a
    different understanding of those same scriptures.  He should be able to
    verify his interpretation by a harmonious array of supporting
    scriptures, even as I tried to do in my response.  And this is the
    proof of the spirit method.
    
    Playtoe

> Or more recently, "The Pope's and Reagon's conspiracy to
>    hasten the demise of communism" as reported in TIME, was satanic

I might add that the Vatican has vehemently denied that they had anything to do
with Reagan.  The Vatican tends not to like the United States.


Playtoe, the Gnostics were around DURING the times of the Apostles, and the
Apostles actually WROTE parts of Scripture to refute them.  I might start with 
John 1:1. The Gnostics denied that Jesus came in the FLESH, and so there are
parts of Scripture which vehemently insist that Jesus came in the flesh; these
were written as a direct refutation of Gnosticism.

As Mary said, the Gnostic sect did indeed claim secret knowledge that was not
given to the Apostles. My NIV Student Bible has this to say: 

"Gnostics balked at the Christian concept of God's becoming a man. Because they
believed a physical body was intrinsically evil, they denied that a pure God
could take on a body.  Some dealt witht he problem by claiming that Jesus was
never a real human being, but a phantom, a temporary appearance of God who only
looked human.  Others proposed that God had "descended" on Jesus at his baptism,
but left him before his death.
"The apostles John debated in person with Gnostics of his day, and he had
Gnostic thinking on his bind when he wrote this letter [1 John]. The very
first sentence expressly states that the author has seen, heard, and touched
Jesus---implying that he could not have been a phantom, or pure spirit..."

"To Gnostics, all matter was evil.  Only the spirit was pure, and Gnostics
sought to rise to a higher, more spiritual plane.  This teaching often produced
a side effect: people who strove to rise about matter didn't care about personal
ethics.  Their pure spirits could not be tainted by "earthly" sin. Thus, they
could act in any way they wanted.

"Aging John roared out against the twin dangers of Gnosticism: immoral living
and doubts that Christ became a man. Beliefs must be judged by the actions
they produce, and John stresses the theme of brotherly love.  He primarly
refutes errors by presenting a wholesome picture of the Christian life as it is
supposed to be lived."

"True fellowship is not a mystical, super-intellectual flight into the great
Alone, but a relationship with the Father through Christ. . ."

I might also add that I believe your analysis of the early Christian church is
a bit biased.  The "Pope" (who was not called so at the time) did not seek to
do as you said:

>    On the other hand, the Roman Catholic church, called them "heretics",
>    claiming that only the Pope/Bishop could affirm a true revelation from
>    God...as such, if the individual's personal revelation disagreed with
>    what the RC church had in mind they were called "heretics"

You are implying that the RC church sought to create truth. No, it sought to
PRESERVE the teachings of the Apostles, which the Gnostics were contradicting.
It is not the job of the "Pope/Bishop" to "affirm a true revelation form God"
as if God only reveals new truths to them individually. Rather, it is the job
of the bishops in union with one another, and the Bishop of Rome alone, to
PRESERVE the teachings of the Apostles, which we believe to be dogmatic truth.
Unlike the Gnostics, the RC church does not "invent" new ideas, but preserve
and clarify Apostolic Teaching.  We believe that public revelation ended with
the death of the last Apostle, and we believe that what the Apostles taught was
Truth (unlike the Gnostics, who claimed to be better than the Apostles, compare
2 Corinthians 11:

"For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we 
preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a
different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.
But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super-apostles". I may
not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge, We have made this perfectly
clear to you in every way."

"Super-apostles" no doubt referred to Gnostic preachers who claimed to be
better than the Apostles and have new knowledge (hence the name) that the
Apostles didn't have.  Paul seems to be speaking directly of them here: If any-
one preaches to you a different gospel, do not listen.

And so it is with the RC church.  If anyone preaches a different Gospel from
that we received from the Apostles, we call it "heresy" and oppose it.

Eric

>    The RC Church feared that if these "Gnostics"
>    were allowed to spread their beliefs everyone would be independent and
>    free...and Ceasar would loose his hold on the people.  Are we still
>    afraid of Ceasar?

Scripture makes it very clear that we are not "free" in doctrine, but are only
to believe what has been passed on: 

"the word of the Lord stands forever. And this is the word that was preached to 
you" (1 Peter 1:25). This word of Christ is entrusted to the apostles and 
prophets (Eph 3:5), who form the foundation of the church (Eph 2:20), which is 
the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). Paul praised the
Corinthians for upholding traditions: "I praise you for remembering me in
everything and for holding to the traditions, just as I passed them on to
you" (1 Cor 11:2). "And we also thank God continually because, when you received
the Word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of
men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who
believe." (1 Thes 2:13). "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the 
teachings which we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
(2 Thess 2:15).

Hence Christians, while we are guided by the Spirit, are not free to develop
our own doctrine; but doctrinal truth was revealed to the Apostles alone, 
written in Scripture and guarded by the RC church.

Eric