Originally Posted by angryllama
I am opposed to Gnosticism because it takes great liberty with the most widely accepted NT texts and virtually ignores the previous tradition of the Torah and the prophets. Jesus specifically stated that he intended to change nothing from the OT texts. Jesus was teaching practical individual fulfillment of the law. He used parables so that people could understand difficult abstract concepts, not because he was referring to "secret messages" of a higher allegory.
To convert the NT into a play of allegory completely ignores historical context and that doesnt seem like a reasonable way to approach a text. It allows for a near complete subjectivity and allows for the reader to warp the meaning into whatever they want. That just doesnt work. Jesus promoted Judaism. You have to understand the context.
See that's where you are wrong, the work i study the torah is very heavily relied upon -
I do understand the bible, and since i grew up in a family that not only accepted prodestantism - but also judism (grandfather on my one parents side) - So i have had a wide variety - and the system i study is rooted in jewish mystism and christian gnostism -
I don't ignore parts of the historical part of the bible - for instance, i believe there were giants on this planet, i am also in belief that the 'watchers' might have been inspiration as to the source of the greek/roman mythos.
But to claim the bible as pure 100% historical fact, while ignoring other texts and other writings of earlier periods - or because they aren't endorsed by the church is foolish - it only shortens the horizen upon which you view.