If you haven't bothered to read it, don't make yourself look a fool by commenting.
If you refuse to read it,(why!?) fine. Just don't post.
Just looking for mistakes I've missed.
(It's a little long, so I don't expect immediate posts from genuine answers!)
Thanks.
The link - http://www.rense.com/general71/defmo.htm
2006-06-17 14:47:40 · 13 answers · asked by googlywotsit 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
lol, Matt - what part of 'Any' did you not understand....?
2006-06-17 15:31:52 · update #1
This is not my work, by the way
:)
2006-06-17 15:48:33 · update #2
I read it and found it very good. I have been studying the Gnostic scriptures for quite a while now.
2006-06-17 15:13:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
The opening words of the Gospel of Judas instantly confirm Irenaeus’ identification of it as a Gnostic document. The opening words are “The secret account of the revelation Jesus spoke. . . to Judas Iscariot.” These words, and terms like them, are extremely common among Gnostic literature.
The Gnostics taught that there was a special secret knowledge (the term “Gnostic” comes from the Greek gnosis, “knowledge”) that was communicated over and above the revelation that was communicated in the Bible. The nature of that knowledge varied greatly amongst the different Gnostic sects, but was almost invariably characterized as “secret” and/or “hidden,” which the Gnostic text or sect now purported to reveal.
These Gnostic documents come from at least the second century A.D., at the time the Gnostic sects were rapidly expanding. There is no evidence that any of these texts was in existence before about A.D. 130, and therefore they were all written well after the writing of the canonical Gospels.
good question
2006-06-17 14:55:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
OK, I read it. The writer is highly educated, and she is a wonderful researcher and has given her opinion on the refferences sited. She also has an incredible story. I found parts very interesting, but since I am not familiar with all of that, I am unable to detect mistakes. It was very well done. And i must admit that there were some points (as well as the lenght) that had me confused.
Read this.
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. (2Co 11:14)
2006-06-17 16:08:05 · answer #3 · answered by Marty 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I perused it. Full of half truths and outright lies.
Yay Matt. Tell it brother.
Great Whit,any ref's?
In days of old, as in today, many people pen "inspired writings".
Dianetics, book of Mormon, Qur'an;Book of Thomas; Judas,(and many many others in the first century), The fact is Holy spirit directed the selection of what today constitutes the Bible.
All these others are just spam from Satan.
2006-06-17 14:55:27 · answer #4 · answered by Tim 47 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What are you looking for? Accuracy, spelling, grammar?
Please, if your gonna be saying "don't make yourself look a fool by commenting If you refuse to read it" Dont make yourself look like a fool by asking your question without any specifics.
2006-06-17 14:54:07 · answer #5 · answered by Matt 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To summarize, dimethyltryptamine makes you see talking spheres of light at 4 AM and you can travel to Jupiter's 10th moon.
2006-06-17 15:07:44 · answer #6 · answered by MorgantonNC 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I read several paragraphs, and everything seems ok. I don't see any mistakes. But I didn't read the entire thing, it is definatly alot to read.
2006-06-17 14:53:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
tried making sense of what urtrying to say; but failed.found it to be too vague and ambiguous to seem plausible. also it wud have helped if u'd ramble less and get to the point.
2006-06-17 15:13:16 · answer #8 · answered by bitsy666 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It seems good, but it's just 2 long 2 sit there and read.SORRY!!!
:)
2006-06-17 14:51:49 · answer #9 · answered by Penzakolachik07 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It really is a matter of just not caring--You are right.
2006-06-17 14:52:25 · answer #10 · answered by PBarnfeather 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋