Praying for others and Christ's mediatorship

[CopticChristian]

I don’t deny Holy Writ. But if by “Holy Writ” you mean your church’s interpretation of the Bible and the Genesis story, then yes, I deny it. However, if by “Holy Writ” you mean scripture, then scripture tells us that sin was not brought into the world by the act of man, but by the imperfection inherent in creation, and that eating of the Tree of Knowledge was the first act of Salvation (See the Apocryphon of John and/or the Hypostasis of the Archons).

Nobody had to die for anything. If you’re referring to Christ, His sacrifice was entering the limitations of matter for our sakes, not dying on a cross. He sacrificed His existence in the Fullness to save us from our existence in the imperfection of this world, from which sin is a result. This imperfection didn’t come about by the actions of a human being, it is a result of the flawed nature of the physical world.

Why would prayer depend on one man’s sins? When we live in a state of imperfection subject to disease, violence, and torment, prayer is a necessity.

And again I say, let’s not get off topic. The interpretation of the Genesis story has nothing to do with the intercession of saints. Although now that I think about it, it’s very relevant to Christ’s mediatorship, but I still think that’s a new and interesting topic entirely.

Gnostic one,

The Catechism, the deposit of Faith states that our beliefs are Revealed truths. There is no truth that is not Revealed. In many and various ways God spoke to us in parts through His prophets and in these last days He spoke to us through His Son. There is no private Revelation beyond Jesus. Revelation does not include the Gospel of Philip, The Apocryphon of John or any of your references. These writings are not part of Divine Revelation. They are not the word of God and should be avoided by anyone as you reference them as they will only confuse the mind.

Your thinking is disoredered to deny the Book of Romans and the message of obedient Faith. This is the entire message of the Book of Romans. The Deposit of Faith is dependent on…

The profession of Faith
Sacramental Life
Morality and Life in Christ, modeling to achieve Holiness because our God is Holy
Prayer, asking for help/grace…

Prayer relies on all of the above being true or we pray for nothing. If one man was not disobedient and as a result sin entered the world. If you deny one man was not disobedient and Christ died for naught, then you deny Christ and cannot be a Christian. This then causes the entirety of the deposit of Faith to be false.

You are confused and I question your notion of being Christian.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Gnostic one,

The Catechism, the deposit of Faith states that our beliefs are Revealed truths. There is no truth that is not Revealed. In many and various ways God spoke to us in parts through His prophets and in these last days He spoke to us through His Son. There is no private Revelation beyond Jesus. Revelation does not include the Gospel of Philip, The Apocryphon of John or any of your references. These writings are not part of Divine Revelation. They are not the word of God and should be avoided by anyone as you reference them as they will only confuse the mind.

Your thinking is disoredered to deny the Book of Romans and the message of obedient Faith. This is the entire message of the Book of Romans. The Deposit of Faith is dependent on…

The profession of Faith
Sacramental Life
Morality and Life in Christ, modeling to achieve Holiness because our God is Holy
Prayer, asking for help/grace…

Prayer relies on all of the above being true or we pray for nothing. If one man was not disobedient and as a result sin entered the world. If you deny one man was not disobedient and Christ died for naught, then you deny Christ and cannot be a Christian. This then causes the entirety of the deposit of Faith to be false.

You are confused and I question your notion of being Christian.

I disagree. I’d be happy to address each of your conclusions, but when you tell me my thinking is disordered (as you often do), I refuse to continue any sort of discussion with you.

 

[CopticChristian]

I disagree. I’d be happy to address each of your conclusions, but when you tell me my thinking is disordered (as you often do), I refuse to continue any sort of discussion with you.

Gnostic one,

Your thinking is not ordered towards the deposit of Faith as outlined.

This is a Catholic Answer Forum where as Catholics, we evangelize in dialogue, ordering our thinking towards the deposit of Faith. My thinking is disordered too. I am attempting to correct that as should you. Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand…Repent=Metanoia=change your mind. Do not be conformed to this world in our sexuality, in our worldliness, but be transformed by the renewal of our minds…

I am repenting, changing my mind, I am renewing my mind so that I am working on ordering my mind to the deposit of Faith…however when I look at the order that the Catechism has outlined for me I see…

Profession of Faith
Sacramental Life
Life in Christ/modeling Christ/ seeking Holiness denying fornication, masturbation, homosexuality as a means to model Christ…
Prayer/grace asking for help

When my thinking is ordered towards the deposit of Faith then I have ordered thinking and when I don’t my mind is disordered. I am not perfect.

Professing this and that means little if modeling Christ is absent for those involved in actions and habits that detract from Life in Christ…

Do you agree or disagree that fornication, masturbation and homosexuallity are a detraction from modeling Christ?

 

[po18guy]

Ezra taught the people from the Law.

Acts 8:26-35 - Philip taught the Ethiopian eunuch that Jesus is the Messiah spoken of in Isaiah.

Who is denying the act of teaching? Especially during times where people had no access to the scriptures.

But the words of God, spoken or read mean what they mean.

Is that all?

 

[choliks]

Interpret? I read English, so the Bible translators interpreted them.

Who interprets them for you. If you say the church, where do you go. Who interprets the words in the catechism (much more difficult to understand). What if I don’t understand the priest, who can interpret that.

All this notion of interpreting is silly. I don’t interpret the Bible and create my own meanings. I just obey what it plainly says. Interpreting scripture is something I don’t do:

2 Peter 1
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God[c] spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

The Bible teaches Adam sinned. The fact that you do not believe it does not change it as the scriptures i posted teaches. You can look for secret meanings all you want, but it would be false.

Peter’s verses has to do with teaching that the Lord is patient, not wishing that any should perish. So you better repent of your false mysticism and your other sin, and put your trust in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Isn’t this a form of interpretation?

 

[SteveVH]

I don’t deny Holy Writ. But if by “Holy Writ” you mean your church’s interpretation of the Bible and the Genesis story, then yes, I deny it. However, if by “Holy Writ” you mean scripture, then scripture tells us that sin was not brought into the world by the act of man, but by the imperfection inherent in creation, and that eating of the Tree of Knowledge was the first act of Salvation

This is like saying that the first step into the quick sand was the first act of being rescued from it. True, if sin had not entered into our world there would be no reason to be saved. This reminds me very much of Mormon theology, that being that God intended for man to sin and, in fact, placed him in a position to where he had no choice but to sin. God was, therefore, complicit in the sin.

And I’m very curious as to what verse in Scripture tells us that “sin was not brought into the world by the act of man”.

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned… (Romans 5:12)

Nobody had to die for anything. If you’re referring to Christ, His sacrifice was entering the limitations of matter for our sakes, not dying on a cross. He sacrificed His existence in the Fullness to save us from our existence in the imperfection of this world, from which sin is a result. This imperfection didn’t come about by the actions of a human being, it is a result of the flawed nature of the physical world.

Sorry, flawed physical nature is a result of sin entering the world through man. You need to take a closer look at Genesis. You have it completley backwards. In your scenario man could never be culpable for sin; “the flawed nature of the physical world made me do it”. Good luck with that one when you stand before your maker.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

This is like saying that the first step into the quick sand was the first act of being rescued from it. True, if sin had not entered into our world there would be no reason to be saved. This reminds me very much of Mormon theology, that being that God intended for man to sin and, in fact, placed him in a position to where he had no choice but to sin. God was, therefore, complicit in the sin.

And I’m very curious as to what verse in Scripture tells us that “sin was not brought into the world by the act of man”.

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned… (Romans 5:12)

Sorry, flawed physical nature is a result of sin entering the world through man. You need to take a closer look at Genesis. You have it completley backwards. In your scenario man could never be culpable for sin; “the flawed nature of the physical world made me do it”. Good luck with that one when you stand before your maker.

I think the confusion lies in which scriptures I was refering to… I was referring to the creation story in the Apocryphon of John and the Hypostasis of the Archons. Adam and Eve didn’t sin by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. God broke them free from the control of a false god, by awakening them to their true nature.

Sin is a result of the flawed nature of the physical world, not the other way around – and that imperfection is what Christ saved us from, by coming to the flesh to destroy incarnate error.

 

[SteveVH]

I think the confusion lies in which scriptures I was refering to… I was referring to the creation story in the Apocryphon of John and the Hypostasis of the Archons. Adam and Eve didn’t sin by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. God broke them free from the control of a false god, by awakening them to their true nature.

Sin is a result of the flawed nature of the physical world, not the other way around – and that imperfection is what Christ saved us from, by coming to the flesh to destroy incarnate error.

How do you rationalize the obvious conflict between what you have cited and what is contained in the canonized Scriptures? Do you hold what these scources say above what is said in the Bible?

 

[gnosisofthomas]

How do you rationalize the obvious conflict between what you have cited and what is contained in the canonized Scriptures? Do you hold what these scources say above what is said in the Bible?

I don’t recognize the idea of “canonized scripture”, so essentially I don’t hold anything above anything else. The books I pointed to are basically a Gnostic exegesis of the creation story, and an explanation I find more believable than the widely accepted interpretation of Genesis.

Also, let’s face it, there are a lot of conflicts within the bible itself, yet Christians who accept the canon are able to reconcile those conflicts somehow.

 

[InHisImage]

How do you rationalize the obvious conflict between what you have cited and what is contained in the canonized Scriptures? Do you hold what these scources say above what is said in the Bible?

The Early Church had no cannon. Each church had its gospels, its epistles, etc. gnosisofthomas is practicing a form of Christianity based upon the Valentinian tradition of Gnosticism, as well as some earlier traditions. Valentinus lived 100 - circa 160 AD. The official cannon as used by the Catholic Church (not including the Apocrypha, I believe) was decided upon in 363 AD. Thus you should not tell thomas that he should base his beliefs only on the canonical books, as there were no cannon when his tradition was born.

 

[SteveVH]

The Early Church had no cannon.

Correct. The Church depended upon Sacred Tradition and it was Sacred Tradition that was used as a measuring stick in the determination of the canon of Scripture. If the writing did not comport with the truth held in Sacred Tradition it was not included. This is why the gnostic writings were not included. They confilcted with the truth handed down by the Apostles.

The official cannon as used by the Catholic Church (not including the Apocrypha, I believe) was decided upon in 363 AD. Thus you should not tell thomas that he should base his beliefs only on the canonical books, as there were no cannon when his tradition was born.

The official canon was determined at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. and it included the Septuagint. And I don’t believe that I told gnosisofthomas that he had to base his beliefs on anything. I only asked how he deals with the fact that the writings he accepts conflict with the canonized Scriptures, which begs the question as to which writings he lends more credence. He obviously does not recognize the Church as having any authority in this matter; instead placing all authority on himself.

 

[InHisImage]

Correct. The Church depended upon Sacred Tradition and it was Sacred Tradition that was used as a measuring stick in the determination of the canon of Scripture. If the writing did not comport with the truth held in Sacred Tradition it was not included. This is why the gnostic writings were not included. They confilcted with the truth handed down by the Apostles.

The official canon was determined at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. and it included the Septuagint. And I don’t believe that I told gnosisofthomas that he had to base his beliefs on anything. I only asked how he deals with the fact that the writings he accepts conflict with the canonized Scriptures, which begs the question as to which writings he lends more credence. He obviously does not recognize the Church as having any authority in this matter; instead placing all authority on himself.

I do not see him as placing all authority upon himself. There is a difference between his beliefs and yours because they come from two different traditions. And the modern “revival” of Gnosticism has not existed long enough to choose from among the various Gnostic and non-Gnostic writings to decide which ones they believe are “canon” for their church. So he must use his own judgment when it comes to choosing which ones to use as source texts. However, each of the texts that he has listed were used by the Gnostics (before they were killed by the “mainstream” church of their time), which makes them at least partially valid to most modern Gnostics. Also, there is support for many Gnostic beliefs in what you consider canon. That’s where most of my gnostic-like beliefs come from. The canonical gospels and the Hebrew canon.

 

[SteveVH]

I don’t recognize the idea of “canonized scripture”, so essentially I don’t hold anything above anything else. The books I pointed to are basically a Gnostic exegesis of the creation story, and an explanation I find more believable than the widely accepted interpretation of Genesis.

On whose authority do you accept the gnostic writings above canonized Scripture, your own? If so, how did you arrive at such a conclusion; that your determination is more sound than the Church?

Also, let’s face it, there are a lot of conflicts within the bible itself, yet Christians who accept the canon are able to reconcile those conflicts somehow.

The conflicts are only apparent. Maybe you could give an example of conflicts within canonized scripture, since you say there are a lot of them.

 

[SteveVH]

I do not see him as placing all authority upon himself. There is a difference between his beliefs and yours because they come from two different traditions.

Yes they do. Me beliefs come from the only Church in the world that can validly trace its apostolic succession back to Peter. The gnostic tradition was deemed heretical by that same Church to which was given the power to bind and loose.

And the modern “revival” of Gnosticism has not existed long enough to choose from among the various Gnostic and non-Gnostic writings to decide which ones they believe are “canon” for their church. So he must use his own judgment when it comes to choosing which ones to use as source texts.

Are you saying he is pretty much running around in the dark, not quite sure as to what to believe? Doesn’t sound like that to me.

However, each of the texts that he has listed were used by the Gnostics (before they were killed by the “mainstream” church of their time), which makes them at least partially valid to most modern Gnostics.

Please cite your source for the killing of the gnostics by the Catholic Church.

Thanks

 

[CopticChristian]

How do you rationalize the obvious conflict between what you have cited and what is contained in the canonized Scriptures? Do you hold what these scources say above what is said in the Bible?

Steve,

The Gnostic one is preaching another Gospel beleiving that it is part of the OHCAC with Apostolic Tradition.

 

[CopticChristian]

The Early Church had no cannon. Each church had its gospels, its epistles, etc. gnosisofthomas is practicing a form of Christianity based upon the Valentinian tradition of Gnosticism, as well as some earlier traditions. Valentinus lived 100 - circa 160 AD. The official cannon as used by the Catholic Church (not including the Apocrypha, I believe) was decided upon in 363 AD. Thus you should not tell thomas that he should base his beliefs only on the canonical books, as there were no cannon when his tradition was born.

Image,

This is CAF, an apologetics site where people come for answers not to be taught. The Gnostic one is preaching another Gospel based not on Velentinus but on the basis of a Liberal Catholic that has revived these Gnostic teachings. We should tell you and Thomas that his beliefs are not consistent with the deposit of Faith or it would do a disservice to the intention of the CAF.

 

[CopticChristian]

I do not see him as placing all authority upon himself. There is a difference between his beliefs and yours because they come from two different traditions. And the modern “revival” of Gnosticism has not existed long enough to choose from among the various Gnostic and non-Gnostic writings to decide which ones they believe are “canon” for their church. So he must use his own judgment when it comes to choosing which ones to use as source texts. However, each of the texts that he has listed were used by the Gnostics (before they were killed by the “mainstream” church of their time), which makes them at least partially valid to most modern Gnostics. Also, there is support for many Gnostic beliefs in what you consider canon. That’s where most of my gnostic-like beliefs come from. The canonical gospels and the Hebrew canon.

Image,

The deposit of Faith is dependent on Divine Revelation not private Judgement and you error in believing and promoting this notion.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

On whose authority do you accept the gnostic writings above canonized Scripture, your own? If so, how did you arrive at such a conclusion; that your determination is more sound than the Church?

Well, this is the big difference between us, Steve. No one has authority to determine “real true” scripture and canonize it, and that includes any human organization. That’s not to say that the writings of the early Christians aren’t important, but none of them are authoritative. We can learn, increase our faith, and grow in Gnosis from reading the scriptures. I never said I accept gnostic writings “above” canonized scripture – I said I don’t believe in the concept of canonized scripture. I still read the books contained in the bible, but the fact that it’s “The Bible” doesn’t give the books any more or less authority.

The conflicts are only apparent. Maybe you could give an example of conflicts within canonized scripture, since you say there are a lot of them.

For example, there seems to be confusion over whether Jesus was the biological son of Joseph, or if Joseph was more of an adoptive father here on earth. The biblical gospels say that Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit, not Joseph. But then, the beginning of Matthew traces Jesus’ ancestry to David through Joseph’s family line. And Acts says of David: “Whereas therefore he was a prophet, and knew that God hath sworn to him with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne” (2:30). Jesus couldn’t have been a fruit of David’s loins if his descendent, Joseph, was not Jesus’ biological father.

Mind you, as a Gnostic, I don’t have a problem with contradictions in scripture – they’re different books written by different people. I’m just point out that they exist. Interestingly enough, the Gospel of Philip says: “Some say, ‘Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit.’ They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled.” (Remember that the Holy Spirit is referred to in feminine terms by Gnostics).

Also, there are also two different accounts of the creation story in Genesis. And let’s not forget that Judas committed suicide in two different ways in the Gospels.

 

[CopticChristian]

Well, this is the big difference between us, Steve. **No one has authority to determine “real true” scripture and canonize it, and that includes any human organization. **That’s not to say that the writings of the early Christians aren’t important, but none of them are authoritative. We can learn, increase our faith, and grow in Gnosis from reading the scriptures. I never said I accept gnostic writings “above” canonized scripture – I said I don’t believe in the concept of canonized scripture. I still read the books contained in the bible, but the fact that it’s “The Bible” doesn’t give the books any more or less authority.

For example, there seems to be confusion over whether Jesus was the biological son of Joseph, or if Joseph was more of an adoptive father here on earth. The biblical gospels say that Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit, not Joseph. But then, the beginning of Matthew traces Jesus’ ancestry to David through Joseph’s family line. And Acts says of David: “Whereas therefore he was a prophet, and knew that God hath sworn to him with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne” (2:30). Jesus couldn’t have been a fruit of David’s loins if his descendent, Joseph, was not Jesus’ biological father.

Mind you, as a Gnostic, I don’t have a problem with contradictions in scripture – they’re different books written by different people. I’m just point out that they exist. Interestingly enough, the Gospel of Philip says: “Some say, ‘Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit.’ They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled.” (Remember that the Holy Spirit is referred to in feminine terms by Gnostics).

Also, there are also two different accounts of the creation story in Genesis. And let’s not forget that Judas committed suicide in two different ways in the Gospels.

Gnostic One,

You are preaching another gospel. You believe wrongly that you are part of the OHCAC…

this is our profession of Faith…

We believe (I believe ) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begottenSon of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God ) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for usmen and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man ; was crucified also for us underPontius Pilate, suffered and wasburied ; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe ) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son ), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by theProphets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and thelife of the world to come. Amen."

If you deny that the OHCAC cannot define Scripture then you preach another gospel…

The Gospel of Philip is not Scripture…

you should consider changing your mind and consider being transformed by the renewal of your mind.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Gnostic One,

You are preaching another gospel. You believe wrongly that you are part of the OHCAC…

this is our profession of Faith…

There’s actually nothing in the Creed that I disagree with.

If you deny that the OHCAC cannot define Scripture then you preach another gospel…

The Gospel of Philip is not Scripture…

Where does the Gospel say the OHCAC can define scripture? The various parts of the orthodox OHCAC can’t even agree on what’s canonical and what isn’t…

you should consider changing your mind and consider being transformed by the renewal of your mind.

I could say the same to you, Coptic One.