User talk:Wmgreene

Welcome!

Hello, Wmgreene, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV), and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Nixdorf 08:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

user contributions
Well, I guess I could remove statements like "great movement dedicated to exposing the fallacies of the Gnostics" and stick with something like "there has been growing interest in the subject for a few years now, and in this context, the Christian Churches of God is now emerging as yet another rather scholarly source which is seeking to help to define, through actual document research, the difference between a Christian and a Gnostic in FAQ Bible Study Old Testament (No. 57) this way: "Anyone who said that when they died they went to heaven, showed by that statement they were a Gnostic and not a Christian (see Justin Martyr, Second Apology). "

I have recieved permission to use the quote:

From: "CCG Secretary"  To: "William Greene" < wm @ greenes .us> Subject: Re: I am requesting permission to use a quote from your site for Wikipedia Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 18:00:52 +1100 Hello William, We thank you for your interest in this work and yes, it is OK to use it as you have indicated. Erica Cox

--Wmgreene 22:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Blessings, Bill


 * Hi Bill, the problem with you edits surely isn't permissions to quote someone, you generally do not need permission for that. To expand on the problem in your edits, I get the feeling that you are a religious person and want to uphold Christianity by denouncing what you percieve to be fallacies (heresies), and in the question of Gnosticism you most certainly take sides with the established Christian church. The problem is that Wikipedia is not the place to carry out such debates.
 * Also, in rewriting the introduction to Gnosticism, you entered much duplicate information (such as the fact that Gnostics were inspired by Plato) for no good reason, the introduction is very nice and concise as it stands in my opinion, and your additions would do under som sub-heading such as "Christian reaction to Gnosticism". Nixdorf 20:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

....................... Hi Nixdorf!

Actually, while many scholars such as yourself have attempted to offer a generic description of Gnostic belief systems, no one is really going to understand very much unless you seek to first explain the original intent of the word; that originally the word Gnostic was limited in terms of one who follows in Philo’s (20B.C.-42 A.D.) footsteps to wed the teachings of Plato (427-347 B.C.) to the Old and New Testaments, by primarily justifying the same through the teachings that Plato learned from Moses, to produce a supposedly new and different philosophical position on the nature of the soul relative to Platonism and thereby profess a supposedly new and different “secret” knowledge of the truth and salvation.

The truth is although the original intent of the word Gnostic was limited in terms of the iterations of Philo there was nothing new about it at all. I am also certainly capable of building the case that the Gnostic Trinity, for example, owes it origins to Pagan theology and Greek philosophy, and to trace the origins of Gnostic belief systems from Rome’s Jupiter, Juno and Minerva, back through Egypt’s dual trinities of Amun-Re-Ptah and Isis, Osiris and Horus, and can even go so far as to offer that it’s origin may also be found in the ancient Sumerian’s Anu, Enlil and Enki.

All of this, of course, would also be meaningless generic descriptions of Gnostic belief systems if it is not contrasted with the fact that even the ancient Sumerian texts reference the fact that the tribe of Adam had its own Triune God, which after the fall was represented as the God of Creation and of all Nature who is Yahweh and the Elohim. This use of Elohim (“Elohim" (Exodus 20:2; Psalms 81:10) is the plural form of "Most High", Elahi/Ehyah) makes it a plural name with a singular, which is referred to as a "uni-plural" noun, suggesting the uni-plurality of our God in terms of the Creative Spirits known as Divine Father God and Divine Mother Goddess, the masculine and feminine principles of creation, and without some kind of basic understanding of the same there is no way anyone could recognize that the uni-plurality of Greek philosophy instead corresponds to the Baal Easter system of idols.

As I tried to explain, the corruptions of Gnosticism is really not new though, as it can be clearly seen that they just merged Baalistic Theory with Yahwistic Theory, called it Platonism and carried the same into Jewish thought and it became the primary corruption of early Christianity. I also believe that we live in a very fortunate time, because unlike many generations of the past, we have many resources out there like that being offered by Bet Emet Ministries which offer a far more accurate look at the origins of original texts and their corruptions:

"It is with this intent that I dedicate this web-site to YHVH as we endeavor to return to the faith once given to the saints; the faith of Yeshua build upon the Jewish Scriptures. In the pages that follow I will lay out for you how the Jewish Scriptures were purposely mistranslated 200 years before the birth of Jesus and how such concepts which were added to the Greek translation of the Jewish Bible were later, following the crucifixion of Jesus, applied to him. Such concepts of the Greek-Jews in Alexandria, Egypt, were a synthesis of Pythagorean-Buddhist Essenes. Their corruption of the Jewish Bible in translation introduced false 'doctrines and dogmas' into the Holy texts. The fruit of such was the creation of a second religious text which was to become the Bible of the Greek-speaking world. This would serve as the background for all later translations and subsequently be used and quoted in the New Testament. Needless to say this corruption of truth would be assimilated by the Greek philosophers who, being the intellectuals of their day, would later write the documents we have collected today as the writings of the Early Church Fathers. In other words, the corruption of the Jewish Bible Jesus used has come down to us today and we unsuspectingly read our Bibles never knowing that these corruptions are in it not that Jesus never believed such falsehoods. He knew better and it is time that you do as well. Let us begin now a serious study into the canonization of the New Testament and then, and only then, once seeing the information for yourself, will you be able to make an intelligent decision in this matter."

Finally, no matter what you think my religious belief systems may be, accurate comparative truths are important to the understanding of any description of Gnostic belief systems.

Blessings, Bill --Wmgreene 02:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)