Ask a Gnostic Christian (Buddhist, disciples, Buddha, myth)

[victorianpunk]

Originally Posted by nightbird47

This is fascinating. I know someone who is Gnostic but she never said much about it.

Ok, I have a question. Say you don't make it to the light. What happens to you after you die?

I've heard that some of the lost gospels spoke of reincarnation.

Well, we make it to the GREAT LIGHT as a result of cultivating learned, divine understanding (Gnosis) in this life. How much do we need? That is not known.

If we do not make it into the GREAT LIGHT, that which cannot die, which is given to us by Sophia from Pleroma, our Pneuma, or soul or Holy Spirit, will be reincarnated, for even Samael and the Archons cannot destroy it...we don't look at reincarnation as a beutiful thing, but more as the monotony of a painful existince.

[nightbird47]

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

Well, we make it to the GREAT LIGHT as a result of cultivating learned, divine understanding (Gnosis) in this life. How much do we need? That is not known.

If we do not make it into the GREAT LIGHT, that which cannot die, which is given to us by Sophia from Pleroma, our Pneuma, or soul or Holy Spirit, will be reincarnated, for even Samael and the Archons cannot destroy it...we don't look at reincarnation as a beutiful thing, but more as the monotony of a painful existince.

That is very close to the defination of why we are reborn in pagan/wiccan belief. Which is taken mostly from Budism. We have an ultimate goal of perfecting the soul but we learn on this plane (earth). Each lifetime we move forward or back. When we reach the point where we know what we must, we do not return.

I don't know if reincarnation is a beautiful thing or not, I would guess that might depend on the nature of the life.

Do you have a concept like karma? by some defination it seems to be universal

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

First of all, ALL THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN LONG AFTER THE "DEATH" OF CHRIST. DEAL WITH IT. They were not "made up" as much as they were what happened when someone finally sat down and wrote the oral traditions which had been around since the Cross.

The Gospel of Thomas is older than Revelation...THIS IS A FACT. The other gospels are very old, dating from the the first and second century, or the pre-100 ADs to the year 100 AD. THIS IS ALSO FACT.

Second...let me state this again and set in RED what I think you over looked, and try to explain...




Like I said, the Bible tells as Myths, which is a story that tells an ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Many fundamentalist types think that every analogy, allegory and metaphor in the Bible is true, and have such a low opinion of our Lord and Liberator Christ that they think he was somehow not intelligent enough to use metaphor.

Here's a good way of looking at it: If Noah spoke modern English and said "I looked out, and it was raining cats and dogs for forty days, and forty nights" and it was written down in just those words, than today, there would be fundamentalists foaming at the mouth at the pulpit declaring

"IT RAINED TABBIES AND PUGS FOR FORTY DAYS AND FORTY NIGHTS AND IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT TO BE LITERAL TRUTH, THAN YOU'LL BURN IN HELL!!!!!!"

Was there literally a dragon in the Garden of Eden that told Eve to eat the apple of knowledge that the demiurge (the creator or satan) had denied her? # No...do I believe that humanity has been punished by it's creature ever since it learned to question it's place in the Universe? Yes. Do I believe that the world was literally made in seven days?...yes and no. Yes, in that it was made in seven of the Demiurge's "days" but not our days...after all, in Genesis 1:19 it clearly shows that the creator(s)*
created the Sun on the Forth day...hence with no day there to mark the passage of one day with and no humans around yet to count the days, those four days could have been four billion years in our time...which makes scientific sense, because most astronomers feel that our star, the Sun, is a pretty yound star, so the light was around before the Sun, with the Sun coming after the light.

Another way of looking at it is like this...when a yound child, let's say five years old, asks his parents "where do baby's come from?" what do they say? "from their mommy's stomach". Is that true? Yes and no. Yes, because the baby does come from within the mother in that general area of the body, and no, because the baby actually grows in the mother's placenta and not the stomach. Did the parents "lie" to the kid? No...they just said it in terms that the kid could understand.

Did the authors of the Bible "lie" about all those Myths? No. They just said it in terms that the people of that age (lacking the sciences) could understand.

Would it make sense for an adult to "have faith in his parents" and therefore deny the existince of the placenta? No. Does it make sense that we in the modern world should "have faith" in Scripture and deny the existince of evolution? No, for the same reasons...

Hence, it is more than possible, and actually, the intelligent thing to do to approach the Scriptures with our brains turned ON.


Also, assuming that you think the god of the old testament, the Creator (Samael, Saklas, Satan) is the same God of Christ, and if you are talking about the creator...than do look here. Why ohh why would a "loving creator" do this to an innocent child who's only crime is to be born in our cruel world?


YouTube - baby born turn out to be a snake!!!

Behold the mighty hand of our "loving creator". Justify it all you want, but there is no LOGICAL WAY that a loving God, the GOD OF CHRIST could do that to someone fresh out the womb. The God of Christ was not the Tyrannt god of Moses, as Christ even hinted at in the NT approved Gospels...if he had only one father, Christ would not of said "our Father, who is in heaven" instead, he would of just said "our Father". He was obviously showing the difference between his God, the GOD OF gOD's, Pleroma and the none-heavenly father, or Samael of the OT...

Also, if you look at Matthew 4:8, Satan offers Christ the world if he would give up his mission...how can he offer that which he does not own? And if you point to Matthew 4:7, 4:4 and 4:10 as proof that Christ followed the God of the OT, look closely to what is being said...he never says "I will follow the Scriptures" (the OT) but instead says "NO, THE SCRIPTURES SAY..." and than throw them at him. He was mocking Satan, the Creator, using the words of his own books of the OT!

But as I have said before, people are going to believe what they want to believe, no matter what I say.

Any other questions?


# In Genesis 3:14, Yaldabaoth punished the "serpent" and curses him to "crawl on his belly"...so before the punishment, at the time it offered Eve the Apple of Knowledge, before it "crawled on it's belly" what did the "serpent" do and look like? Like this maybe...



And funny, one of the other Gnostic religions, Buddhism, teaches that the Dragon is the bearer of knowledge and light...

coincidence?...


* [Elohim in Herbew is the plural form of the word "god" which is used up until the singular of God, Elohm, is used staring at Genesis 2. Hence, gods created man and told them to "be fruitful and multiply" why the god of the Isrealites created Adam and Eve in the Garden...and that is where Cain's mysterious wife came from, she was a creation of the other gods.]

The Gospels found in the New Testament were written by first hand accounts, and no, the Bible does not tell us a myth to explain some other truth. What is becoming more obvious, is that some of the stories you might believe are myths, are being proven by historical discovery. And your right about people believing what they want, yet if they believe the truth of the Bible it will not steer them wrong.

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

First of all, ALL THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN LONG AFTER THE "DEATH" OF CHRIST. DEAL WITH IT. They were not "made up" as much as they were what happened when someone finally sat down and wrote the oral traditions which had been around since the Cross.

The Gospel of Thomas is older than Revelation...THIS IS A FACT. The other gospels are very old, dating from the the first and second century, or the pre-100 ADs to the year 100 AD. THIS IS ALSO FACT.

Second...let me state this again and set in RED what I think you over looked, and try to explain...

Hi victorianpunk,

Even if the Gospel of Thomas is granted(generously) to have fragments around 150 AD it gives very weak support for Gnosticism. Even the accepted Gospels have the idea of "Gnostic" principles of secrete knowledge as Jesus explained he spoke in parables. So Thomas is arguably quite close than is characterized. It was more or less a problem of association. I would suppose if one is not humble it makes little point to tell such a person anything.

Like I said, the Bible tells as Myths, which is a story that tells an ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Many fundamentalist types think that every analogy, allegory and metaphor in the Bible is true, and have such a low opinion of our Lord and Liberator Christ that they think he was somehow not intelligent enough to use metaphor.

Here's a good way of looking at it: If Noah spoke modern English and said "I looked out, and it was raining cats and dogs for forty days, and forty nights" and it was written down in just those words, than today, there would be fundamentalists foaming at the mouth at the pulpit declaring

"IT RAINED TABBIES AND PUGS FOR FORTY DAYS AND FORTY NIGHTS AND IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT TO BE LITERAL TRUTH, THAN YOU'LL BURN IN HELL!!!!!!"

Now this I can agree with . Isn't it amazing that a culture that so often uses metaphors is assumed to be speaking literally unless proven otherwise? If lightening strikes twice I suppose someone might assume I am calling in lightening bolts.

Was there literally a dragon in the Garden of Eden that told Eve to eat the apple of knowledge that the demiurge (the creator or satan) had denied her? # No...do I believe that humanity has been punished by it's creature ever since it learned to question it's place in the Universe? Yes. Do I believe that the world was literally made in seven days?...yes and no. Yes, in that it was made in seven of the Demiurge's "days" but not our days...after all, in Genesis 1:19 it clearly shows that the creator(s)*
created the Sun on the Forth day...hence with no day there to mark the passage of one day with and no humans around yet to count the days, those four days could have been four billion years in our time...which makes scientific sense, because most astronomers feel that our star, the Sun, is a pretty yound star, so the light was around before the Sun, with the Sun coming after the light.

Another way of looking at it is like this...when a yound child, let's say five years old, asks his parents "where do baby's come from?" what do they say? "from their mommy's stomach". Is that true? Yes and no. Yes, because the baby does come from within the mother in that general area of the body, and no, because the baby actually grows in the mother's placenta and not the stomach. Did the parents "lie" to the kid? No...they just said it in terms that the kid could understand.

Did the authors of the Bible "lie" about all those Myths? No. They just said it in terms that the people of that age (lacking the sciences) could understand.

Would it make sense for an adult to "have faith in his parents" and therefore deny the existince of the placenta? No. Does it make sense that we in the modern world should "have faith" in Scripture and deny the existince of evolution? No, for the same reasons...

Hence, it is more than possible, and actually, the intelligent thing to do to approach the Scriptures with our brains turned ON.


Also, assuming that you think the god of the old testament, the Creator (Samael, Saklas, Satan) is the same God of Christ, and if you are talking about the creator...than do look here. Why ohh why would a "loving creator" do this to an innocent child who's only crime is to be born in our cruel world?


YouTube - baby born turn out to be a snake!!!

Behold the mighty hand of our "loving creator". Justify it all you want, but there is no LOGICAL WAY that a loving God, the GOD OF CHRIST could do that to someone fresh out the womb. The God of Christ was not the Tyrannt god of Moses, as Christ even hinted at in the NT approved Gospels...if he had only one father, Christ would not of said "our Father, who is in heaven" instead, he would of just said "our Father". He was obviously showing the difference between his God, the GOD OF gOD's, Pleroma and the none-heavenly father, or Samael of the OT...

I find this a little paradoxical. If Gnosticism draws on the fact that the created world is evil why does it not ultimately look at the eternal? In Luke Jesus says the rich have their reward. One who has been given little in the flesh may ultimately have better things. It is humility that gives us the path to God. Having been given much in this world may be a dangerous thing. We do not have an eternal vision. If I had lost my legs and could not climb a mountain that I otherwise would have to perish in an avalanche I know longer am clear on what was evil.


Micah 4

7 I will make the lame a remnant,
And the outcast a strong nation;
So the LORD will reign over them in Mount Zion
From now on, even forever.

Also, if you look at Matthew 4:8, Satan offers Christ the world if he would give up his mission...how can he offer that which he does not own? And if you point to Matthew 4:7, 4:4 and 4:10 as proof that Christ followed the God of the OT, look closely to what is being said...he never says "I will follow the Scriptures" (the OT) but instead says "NO, THE SCRIPTURES SAY..." and than throw them at him. He was mocking Satan, the Creator, using the words of his own books of the OT!

Out of context. Jesus strikes down those words using the same scriptures.

But as I have said before, people are going to believe what they want to believe, no matter what I say.

Any other questions?


# In Genesis 3:14, Yaldabaoth punished the "serpent" and curses him to "crawl on his belly"...so before the punishment, at the time it offered Eve the Apple of Knowledge, before it "crawled on it's belly" what did the "serpent" do and look like? Like this maybe...



And funny, one of the other Gnostic religions, Buddhism, teaches that the Dragon is the bearer of knowledge and light...

coincidence?...


* [Elohim in Herbew is the plural form of the word "god" which is used up until the singular of God, Elohm, is used staring at Genesis 2. Hence, gods created man and told them to "be fruitful and multiply" why the god of the Isrealites created Adam and Eve in the Garden...and that is where Cain's mysterious wife came from, she was a creation of the other gods.]

I sure could not find that in the Gospel of Thomas.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

The Gospels found in the New Testament were written by first hand accounts, and no, the Bible does not tell us a myth to explain some other truth. What is becoming more obvious, is that some of the stories you might believe are myths, are being proven by historical discovery. And your right about people believing what they want, yet if they believe the truth of the Bible it will not steer them wrong.

There is a serious lack of understanding about the role of myths or stories, per se, in the human mind. ALL stories produce concepts and thought "realities" (or spiritual "things"). It is the spiritual "things" we produce that are the most important part of our reality. They are what we will have and retain for eternity (our spiritual understanding and character) . . . unless we modify them while still here. (It is ok if you reject this using superficial understanding . . . because it is not simple and unless you engage in deep philosophical thought it can seem bizarre or incomprehensible).

[eddie gein]

Here is my favorite Gnostic contemporary lyric which was written and performed by "The Tubes".

Fantastic Delusion

Look around tell me what you see
The sky is blue and the trees are green
But what you see isn't what it seems
It's all part of a cruel scheme

Look closer, you can see the flaws
The holes in the floor and cracks in the walls
That gleam in your eye isn't there at all
It's painted on like a face of a doll

So it begins, fantastic delusion
Time and again, time and again

I see you dancin' as they pull the string
And droolin' when that dinner bell rings
Don't you wish you could stop wishin'
You're not even listenin'

And if what I say is the truth
If the trees aren't green and the sky's not blue
Then I'm not really losin' you
One thing for sure, I'm real confused

So it begins, fantastic delusion
Time and again, time and again

Shuffling back and forth all day
Most people never notice
But I'm not crazy and I know what I say
It's all hocus-pocus

Don't you wish you could stop wishin'
You're not even listenin'
One thing for sure it's real confusin'
Fantastic delusion

[victorianpunk]

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

Hi victorianpunk,

Even if the Gospel of Thomas is granted(generously) to have fragments around 150 AD it gives very weak support for Gnosticism. Even the accepted Gospels have the idea of "Gnostic" principles of secrete knowledge as Jesus explained he spoke in parables. So Thomas is arguably quite close than is characterized. It was more or less a problem of association. I would suppose if one is not humble it makes little point to tell such a person anything.

Well, the Gospel of Thomas was around since the first century, when many of the book of the NT were around. Also, the Gnostic principles in the NT Gospels are there because Christ was teaching Gnosis.

Now this I can agree with . Isn't it amazing that a culture that so often uses metaphors is assumed to be speaking literally unless proven otherwise? If lightening strikes twice I suppose someone might assume I am calling in lightening bolts.

I agree almost 100%. Thing is, some people will believe the metaphor to be truth even after it is proven otherwise. There are still allot of people out there who believe that the world was created in seven twenty-four hour periods and that the world is less than a hundred thousand years old, despite carbon dating, the speed of light dividied by distance equals age of stars, all the evidence, the geological records etc etc etc...

I find this a little paradoxical. If Gnosticism draws on the fact that the created world is evil why does it not ultimately look at the eternal?

We do, both the eternal without (the GREAT LIGHT of Pleroma) and the divine with, the inner divine spark of Pneuma. We simply accept that we do exist in the world. This world is a maze that we must negotiate using the teachings of our Lord Christ to do so.

In Luke Jesus says the rich have their reward. One who has been given little in the flesh may ultimately have better things. It is humility that gives us the path to God. Having been given much in this world may be a dangerous thing. We do not have an eternal vision. If I had lost my legs and could not climb a mountain that I otherwise would have to perish in an avalanche I know longer am clear on what was evil.

It is not the just the horror that the world bestows on people, but also the fact of what life is in and of it's self. If there were no humans, there would still be suffering, and suffering...AND SUFFERING. All life must suffer and live of off other live...plants live in the decayed remains of that which has suffered and died. Planting eating animals life off of the plants that they must kill to eat, carnivors must kill and eat the plant eaters, and micro-organisms live off of all in a parasitic matter.

Life is set-up to be about suffering, therefore, who ever created this painful condition we call life must be evil. We as humans can be humble, but an animal cannot. Also, if god created man in his own image...looking at the bloody history of humanity, this most cruel of all the animals, what does that have to say about god? If the same species that gave is Hitler, Stalin, Osama, Jeffrey Dommer, war, hatred, rape, greed etc is "in the image of god"...than what must god's image look like?

Out of context. Jesus strikes down those words using the same scriptures.

He does, but he never says that he follows them, he only repeats them. I look at it like that one scene in Spiderman, where someone owes Peter Parker money that Parker claims "he needs" but the man says "I missed the part where that was my problem". Two minutes later the man is robbed, and he runs to Parker and says "you could have clobbered that guy!" and Parker replies by saying "I missed the part where that was my problem". Christ throw satan, the creator's, own words back on him. He never said he bowed down to the laws of Moses, even in the NT Gospels.

I sure could not find that in the Gospel of Thomas.

It's in the Pistis Sophia and On the Origins of the World, also found in the Nag Hammadi library and in the Askew Codex. As gnosticism was taught from teacher to teacher, they were written down sometime in the second or first century from oral tradition. We know they are older because Iraneus states that these works were around in his time and does not hint that they were new.

And the Hebrew is from what modern, secular scholars have concluded. New research shows that the Gnostics were right. The first book of Genesis was actually written in a monolatrist view point, with all the gods getting together to create the world and humanity in Genesis 1 (the people told to "be fruitful and multiply) and Yaldaboath creating Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, with Cain finding his wife amongst those "other people" who were not of the descendents of Adam.

[victorianpunk]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

The Gospels found in the New Testament were written by first hand accounts, and no, the Bible does not tell us a myth to explain some other truth. What is becoming more obvious, is that some of the stories you might believe are myths, are being proven by historical discovery. And your right about people believing what they want, yet if they believe the truth of the Bible it will not steer them wrong.

The Gospels were not written by first hand accounts. This view has been tossed aside by historians time and time again.

As for the Myths...so, like I said, if Noah used modern English, would the fundamentalists really be saying that it rained Siamese Cats and Pitt Pulls?

Science is science is science, and we can do three things now:

1: Say that science is somehow false, and that all the Myths were literall truths and therefore deny the truth of science

2: Say that science is the only truth, and therefore loose spirituality and all the good that can come from it

3: Say that science is correct in that it helps proof the origins of the Myths of religion which tell a much greater truth about ourselves and the divine.



I take choice number 3.

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

Well, the Gospel of Thomas was around since the first century, when many of the book of the NT were around. Also, the Gnostic principles in the NT Gospels are there because Christ was teaching Gnosis.

Greetings victorianpunk,


I simply do not consider the Coptic gospel of Thomas to be a Gnostic gospel. It is also never found in early canons. Why was it not in the Marcion canon?

We do, both the eternal without (the GREAT LIGHT of Pleroma) and the divine with, the inner divine spark of Pneuma. We simply accept that we do exist in the world. This world is a maze that we must negotiate using the teachings of our Lord Christ to do so.


It is not the just the horror that the world bestows on people, but also the fact of what life is in and of it's self. If there were no humans, there would still be suffering, and suffering...AND SUFFERING. All life must suffer and live of off other live...plants live in the decayed remains of that which has suffered and died. Planting eating animals life off of the plants that they must kill to eat, carnivors must kill and eat the plant eaters, and micro-organisms live off of all in a parasitic matter.

Life is set-up to be about suffering, therefore, who ever created this painful condition we call life must be evil. We as humans can be humble, but an animal cannot. Also, if god created man in his own image...looking at the bloody history of humanity, this most cruel of all the animals, what does that have to say about god? If the same species that gave is Hitler, Stalin, Osama, Jeffrey Dommer, war, hatred, rape, greed etc is "in the image of god"...than what must god's image look like?

Man is evil. Have you ever noticed that every fiction, which is an act of creation, contains evil. The world under our dominion suffered with us. Certainly most stories are about overcoming evil but at the moment man has the opportunity to remove all evil in their fiction he introduces it. As soon as evil is overcome all interest is lost to boredom and quickly "the end or "happily ever after" is inserted. Man hypocritically creates worlds with Darth Vader and Sargon while asking God to turn everything but them into puppets. This world has been given to us.

He does, but he never says that he follows them, he only repeats them. I look at it like that one scene in Spiderman, where someone owes Peter Parker money that Parker claims "he needs" but the man says "I missed the part where that was my problem". Two minutes later the man is robbed, and he runs to Parker and says "you could have clobbered that guy!" and Parker replies by saying "I missed the part where that was my problem". Christ throw satan, the creator's, own words back on him. He never said he bowed down to the laws of Moses, even in the NT Gospels.

No, no, no. Jesus clearly is treating it as authority and clearly says to read the prophets.

Luke 24

44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.
46 Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise[h] from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And you are witnesses of these things. 49 Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem[i] until you are endued with power from on high.”

This oddly was Marcion's favorite Gospel not that it is yours but you need to start tossing out the earliest manuscripts to dump the OT. Then I have no clue where Jesus has any authority.

It's in the Pistis Sophia and On the Origins of the World, also found in the Nag Hammadi library and in the Askew Codex. As gnosticism was taught from teacher to teacher, they were written down sometime in the second or first century from oral tradition. We know they are older because Iraneus states that these works were around in his time and does not hint that they were new.

That is the association, it was found with Gnostic works. However Thomas is not particularly Gnostic to me if it is a bid odd in places. Again as I said Gnostics were certainly in existence since Paul and John seem to be battling them. Those that came latter simply followed their lead. It had nothing to do with Catholics.

And the Hebrew is from what modern, secular scholars have concluded. New research shows that the Gnostics were right. The first book of Genesis was actually written in a monolatrist view point, with all the gods getting together to create the world and humanity in Genesis 1 (the people told to "be fruitful and multiply) and Yaldaboath creating Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, with Cain finding his wife amongst those "other people" who were not of the descendents of Adam.

The Gnostics have been discovered to be right about Genesis? That is an opinion. Isaiah mentions "Us" and Micah 5 Jesus' preexistence and certainly Christianity expands this especially with the Gospel of John. The idea of monotheism is so poorly comprehended and distorted. People cannot understand this with modern mythological concepts like opposites and single points which are nothing but human constructions and gestalts. No one can ever tell me an example of pure oneness or opposites and yet they believe in it...? God is one of what? I never ever get an answer. I have an answer, and I call it an elemental will. It is not unlike the text in front of you is a manifestation of me because its my will even though its a serial transmission through computers. So this idea that monolatrist resolves this debate simply relies on the myth of singularity which then brings about yet another form of panthiesm.

[RobinD69]

How can you call yourself a Christian of any sort if you choose to reject the truths of Christianity? There are some theories out there that are just waiting to be confirmed but are hinted at within the scriptures. Such as the NT was written as it was happening. I bring this up because of the educational background of some of the apostles as well as the evidence that several Pharasees and scribes followed Christ. Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and Paul. Most of the Apostles were actually business men and had to of had some sort of education to insure they were not cheated.

Another theory out there is concerning the Us of the OT. We know we are commanded to pray in the name of Christ. We also know that there are three personalities of the God head; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. God the Father is the unseen all holy, all in all. God the Son is the Word made flesh to redeem us from ourselves. And God the Holy Spirit is the pertion of God He bestows upon us.

While I am working with theories lets look at the fact that man was created perfect in the flesh and that sin has slowly broken down that perfection. We do not know if Adam and Eve had children before the fall or even exactly how long they were in the garden. We do not even know for certain if they had children before or between Cain and Abel, it is not specified that they were the first children. We do not know how old they were when Cain slew Abel. With all these questions there is room for alot of theory. Lets say Adam and Eve were created perfect in the flesh and that they were there for say 100 years before the fall. Lets say they had a child a year before and after the fall and that those children set out on their own once they were old enough and chose their mate from siblings or neices and nephews. There could have easily been 1000 people populating the earth before the fall and then after the fall it continued to the point the world was populated close to what it is now by the flood.

Remember I just offered alot of theories that do not conflict with the scriptures and I did not need to justify these theories with gnosticism. Gnosticism has been around almost as long as world. It has always been an adversery of the true line. Notice adversery, Satan, is what I used. You see Satan wants us to believe in what we can see and reject what we cannot. He has encouraged throughout history the worship of false idols and false gods because any worship other than the one true God is worship of Satan. Knowledge is a good thing, but knowledge can be compromised and tainted just as anything can. In many was worldly knowledge stands in the way of the truth.

We assume that man has primitive origins when there is no evidence for this only theories. Now it is quite possible that Adam and Eve were far more intellegent than our most intellegent today. Sure we have ll these inventions and advances technology, but what if all this knowledge has stood in the way of our true intellegence, our true power, our true abilities. Jesus came using signs and wonders, powers no one else legitimately expressed at the time. We know Jesus was born perfect and remeained perfect unto death and resurection. He was the perfect example of what we all should have been if not for sin. Would there be a need for doctors if every injury could be healed? Would there be a need for transportation if we had the ability to transcend? Would there be a need for boats if we could walk on water? Imagine the abilities that mankind could have had before and after the fall and gradually lost do to sin.

Knowledge is great, dont get me wrong, but there is knowledge that blinds you to the truth.