Christology

[immortal]

If one preserves these statements then Christianity will live forever.

 

Colossians 2:9

 

 

 

 

"Christ has each within him, whether human being or angel or mystery" (Gospel of Philip 56:14-15).

 

 

"People cannot see anything in the real realm unless they become it...if you have seen the spirit, you have become the spirit; if you have seen Christ, you have become Christ; if you have seen the Father, you will become the Father" (Gospel of Philip 61:20-32 cf. 67:26-27)

 

 

10. Of the simple and unchangeable Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one God, in whom substance and quality are identical.

 

There is, accordingly, a good which is alone simple, and therefore alone unchangeable, and this is God. By this Good have all others been created, but not simple, and therefore not unchangeable. "Created," I say,--that is, made, not begotten. For that which is begotten of the simple Good is simple as itself, and the same as itself. These two we call the Father and the Son; and both together with the Holy Spirit are one God; and to this Spirit the epithet Holy is in Scripture, as it were, appropriated. And He is another than the Father and the Son, for He is neither the Father nor the Son. I say "another," not "another thing," because He is equally with them the simple Good, unchangeable and co-eternal. And this Trinity is one God; and none the less simple because a Trinity. For we do not say that the nature of the good is simple, because the Father alone possesses it, or the Son alone, or the Holy Ghost alone; nor do we say, with the Sabellian heretics, that it is only nominally a Trinity, and has no real distinction of persons; but we say it is simple, because it is what it has, with the exception of the relation of the persons to one another. For, in regard to this relation, it is true that the Father has a Son, and yet is not Himself the Son; and the Son has a Father, and is not Himself the Father. But, as regards Himself, irrespective of relation to the other, each is what He has; thus, He is in Himself living, for He has life, and is Himself the Life which He has.

 

It is for this reason, then, that the nature of the Trinity is called simple, because it has not anything which it can lose, and because it is not one thing and its contents another, as a cup and the liquor, or a body and its colour, or the air and the light or heat of it, or a mind and its wisdom. For none of these is what it has: the cup is not liquor, nor the body colour, nor the air light and heat, nor the mind wisdom. And hence they can be deprived of what they have, and can be turned or changed into other qualities and states, so that the cup may be emptied of the liquid of which it is full, the body be discoloured, the air darken, the mind grow silly. The incorruptible body which is promised to the saints in the resurrection cannot, indeed, lose its quality of incorruption, but the bodily substance and the quality of incorruption are not the same thing. For the quality of incorruption resides entire in each several part, not greater in one and less in another; for no part is more incorruptible than another. The body, indeed, is itself greater in whole than in part; and one part of it is larger, another smaller, yet is not the larger more incorruptible than the smaller. The body, then, which is not in each of its parts a whole body, is one thing; incorruptibility, which is throughout complete, is another thing;--for every part of the incorruptible body, however unequal to the rest otherwise, is equally incorrupt. For the hand, e.g., is not more incorrupt than the finger because it is larger than the finger; so, though finger and hand are unequal, their incorruptibility is equal. Thus, although incorruptibility is inseparable from an incorruptible body, yet the substance of the body is one thing, the quality of incorruption another. And therefore the body is not what it has. The soul itself, too, though it be always wise (as it will be eternally when it is redeemed), will be so by participating in the unchangeable wisdom, which it is not; for though the air be never robbed of the light that is shed abroad in it, it is not on that account the same thing as the light. I do not mean that the soul is air, as has been supposed by some who could not conceive a spiritual nature; but, with much dissimilarity, the two things have a kind of likeness, which makes it suitable to say that the immaterial soul is illumined with the immaterial light of the simple wisdom of God, as the material air is irradiated with material light, and that, as the air, when deprived of this light, grows dark, (for material darkness is nothing more than air wanting light,) so the soul, deprived of the light of wisdom, grows dark.

 

According to this, then, those things which are essentially and truly divine are called simple, because in them quality and substance are identical, and because they are divine, or wise, or blessed in themselves, and without extraneous supplement. In Holy Scripture, it is true, the Spirit of wisdom is called "manifold" because it contains many things in it; but what it contains it also is, and it being one is all these things. For neither are there many wisdoms, but one, in which are untold and infinite treasures of things intellectual, wherein are all invisible and unchangeable reasons of things visible and changeable which were created by it. For God made nothing unwittingly; not even a human workman can be said to do so. But if He knew all that He made, He made only those things which He had known. Whence flows a very striking but true conclusion, that this world could not be known to us unless it existed, but could not have existed unless it had been known to God.

 

- Saint Augustine, City Of God (excerpt)

[imatfaal]

Colossians 2:9 according to whom? Which parts of Christianity recognize the Gospel of Philip?

[immortal]

Colossians 2:9 according to whom?

 

According to St. Paul.

 

Which parts of Christianity recognize the Gospel of Philip?

 

The Valentinians recognize it, a legitimate Christian sect.

 

[John Cuthber]

"If one preserves these statements then Christianity will live forever.

 

Colossians 2:9"

 

No, not really.

Imagine it were preserved in this script.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_C

 

It's also hypothetically possible that Christianity will be proved wrong. Either the non existence of God or the proof of the correctness of some other faith would do this.

The text could still be preserved but Christianity would no longer exist.

[Phi for All]

If one preserves these statements then Christianity will live forever.

Preserves how?

 

Personally, I always thought pleroma was one of the most insidiously manipulative concepts in the Christian arsenal. The idea that you have to keep believing until the church thinks you're "full" seems, imo, incredibly ambiguous and prone to abuse by Christian authority.

 

Christianity will live forever? More meaninglessness and hypocrisy from the folks who brought you eternal damnation for the sin of being human.

[imatfaal]

According to St. Paul.

 

St Paul wrote in a mixture of transliterated Greek and English? No - I was asking whose translation - you seem to have managed to avoid the whole circumcision bit, used pleroma far too often, and added on a lot of mysticism.

 

The Valentinians recognize it, a legitimate Christian sect.

 

Legitimate is not really a word you can apply to sects today - who legitimates them? which law? Strangely enough the one thing they were according to the law was heretical - in the second century. And the Valentinians surely died out in the about the 800s - so not exactly current, and they didn't survive in any numbers that well into the second millennium let alone forever.

[immortal]

It's also hypothetically possible that Christianity will be proved wrong. Either the non existence of God or the proof of the correctness of some other faith would do this.

The text could still be preserved but Christianity would no longer exist.

 

What's there in other faiths that Christianity doesn't have?

 

St Paul wrote in a mixture of transliterated Greek and English? No - I was asking whose translation - you seem to have managed to avoid the whole circumcision bit, used pleroma far too often,

 

In the Greek translation Colossians 2:9 reads as this - hoti en auto katoikei pan to pleroma tes theotetos somatikos,

 

It is customary that everywhere the term "fullness" is used it can or must be substituted with the term "pleroma". I didn't designed that image but it makes sense. The one who designed it has used the statements from both the Colossians and the Ephesians of St. Paul.

 

 

Colossians 2:9

For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

Ephesians 3:19

and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

Ephesians 4:13

until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. (Col 2:10)

Ephesians 1:22

And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church,

Ephesians 1:23

which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

 

 

The circumcision bit is dealt in the next part i.e. in Col 2:11.

 

and added on a lot of mysticism.

 

St. Paul is criticizing the church at Collosians for practising asceticism and the worship of angels and he is advising them that one need not have to worship the lower Aeons because Christ as an Aeon represents the totality of all divine powers(Pleroma) and he represents fullness. Everything in the real realm is made into fullness, the Holy spirit has both Christ and the Father in itself and has the potential to become both and in the same way the Christ has both the Holy Spirit and the Father in himself and therefore individuality is only apparent everything in the real realm is made into fullness and everything in the real realm has the potential to become the Father. If you(The Self) were not made into fullness then will it be possible for you to become the Father? No, right. This was the true message of Christianity. One need not visit a Church to worship the Christ, Holy Spirit and the Father with in you.

 

Colossians 2:18

 

Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind,

 

Colossians 2:19

and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

 

Some take this too literal and believe in a Supernatural Jesus with a body of human flesh but the use of the word "pleroma" always represents the "totality of divine powers", it represents a Mythical Christ where all the Aeons, the lower angels reside in Christ himself, this should have been the ontology and meaning of the fullness of Christ, the Christ with in you. This was meant for those who sought after the higher teachings of the Kingdom of God.

 

Legitimate is not really a word you can apply to sects today - who legitimates them? which law? Strangely enough the one thing they were according to the law was heretical - in the second century. And the Valentinians surely died out in the about the 800s - so not exactly current, and they didn't survive in any numbers that well into the second millennium let alone forever.

 

They might have died out but their powerful ideas have not, for Valentinus, Christ was a spiritual teacher who reveals the 'Self' with in you and Christ reside in all of us. They didn't encouraged a Super-naturalist Jesus.

 

 

 

Christianity will live forever? More meaninglessness and hypocrisy from the folks who brought you eternal damnation for the sin of being human.

 

Nope, they brought us eternal life and taught us to achieve freedom from bondage.

[imatfaal]

What's there in other faiths that Christianity doesn't have?

God's who are brothers and sister would be a simple answer. Lesser Gods. Matrilinearity. Airborne Pasta Deities.

 

In the Greek translation Colossians 2:9 reads as this - hoti en auto katoikei pan to pleroma tes theotetos somatikos,

 

It is customary that everywhere the term "fullness" is used it can or must be substituted with the term "pleroma". I didn't designed that image but it makes sense. The one who designed it has used the statements from both the Colossians and the Ephesians of St. Paul.

 

The circumcision bit is dealt in the next part i.e. in Col 2:11.

It was the mangling of multiple passages together that had me wondering. It is definitely not customary to leave pleroma untranslated or substitute it in. Liturgists tend to object to people subbing in words - you take a translation and stick with it. None of the usual translations of Col 2:9 use pleroma.

 

St. Paul is criticizing the church at Collosians for practising asceticism and the worship of angels and he is advising them that one need not have to worship the lower Aeons because Christ as an Aeon represents the totality of all divine powers(Pleroma) and he represents fullness. Everything in the real realm is made into fullness, the Holy spirit has both Christ and the Father in itself and has the potential to become both and in the same way the Christ has both the Holy Spirit and the Father in himself and therefore individuality is only apparent everything in the real realm is made into fullness and everything in the real realm has the potential to become the Father. If you(The Self) were not made into fullness then will it be possible for you to become the Father? No, right. This was the true message of Christianity. One need not visit a Church to worship the Christ, Holy Spirit and the Father with in you.

That is an almost completely non-christian (albeit valid) interpretation of the section. Aeons are a gnostic spirit being which we know most about from Tertullian's condemnation of the Valentinian Heresy - they are gnosticism, they enter Xty as part of a heresy. As a signed up member of the C of FSM I think both are Xty and Gn are equally preposterous and heretical - but you should not conflate the two.

 

 

Some take this too literal and believe in a Supernatural Jesus with a body of human flesh but the use of the word "pleroma" always represents the "totality of divine powers", it represents a Mythical Christ where all the Aeons, the lower angels reside in Christ himself, this should have been the ontology and meaning of the fullness of Christ, the Christ with in you. This was meant for those who sought after the higher teachings of the Kingdom of God.

again not Xty

 

They might have died out but their powerful ideas have not, for Valentinus, Christ was a spiritual teacher who reveals the 'Self' with in you and Christ reside in all of us. They didn't encouraged a Super-naturalist Jesus.

The "powerful ideas" are desperately hard to find apart from a rump end of gnosticism in the far reaches of the internet or as a historical curiosity for those interested in the foundations of Xty.

 

Nope, they brought us eternal life and taught us to achieve freedom from bondage.

We must be talking about a different Xty

[ydoaPs]

As a signed up member of the C of FSM I think both are Xty and Gn are equally preposterous and heretical - but you should not conflate the two.

 

There's no such thing as "Christianity"; we must speak of individual sects. Gnostic sects qualify just as much as Ebionites, Marconionites, the proto-Orthodox, the RCC, and the thousands of Protestant sects.

[A Tripolation]

There's no such thing as "Christianity";

 

Funny. That seems to be the religion I practice. Or is this another one of the whole "nothing really exists because Descarte" philosophy ploys?

Edited September 26, 2012 by A Tripolation

[LimbicLoser]

I shouldn't be so surprised, but would neither be able to remain openly honest to myself, and others, if I were to deny have a tingling sensation of that very emotion. Of the degree of error involved in the OP, there need not much else be said, actually (as has been said above). If we were to position ourselves in the seat of a certain open mindedness (perhaps not going as far as 'too... hee, hee, hee... Joke !! Take it in good heart, too open minded [if I have that user name correct, here]) and cultivate the interest in learning further--as far as we can--I am quite certain that we will work towards a betterment; a far more desirous circumstance of pragmatic, more productive, and positive-in-outcome social potential. I wish to help towards that goal of learning, to the degree that I can. I do feel, however (and I cannot deny it) a certain anguish that such error, as seen here too, is being perpetuated.

 

What's there in other faiths that Christianity doesn't have?

While this is a side note, of course, it is not the right question from the perspective of approach. (as this thread has been presented) The right question would surely have been, "What's there in Christianity-at-large that other theist-involved belief systems do not have in their doctrine (as presented in the information sources they are built on)?

 

In the Greek translation Colossians 2:9 reads as this - hoti en auto katoikei pan to pleroma tes theotetos somatikos,

First of all, in the way of correction, the above sentence portion which is not English, is not a translation. A translation will always be in the target language translated into, using only the words (inclusive of loan words, of course, however) that that target language uses. What is given, correctly identifying it, is a 'transliteration' as imatfaal had pointed out above. The better recension gives us, " ὅτι ἐν αὐτῶ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς,...," and the transliteration provided by immortal is correct.

 

It is customary that everywhere the term "fullness" is used it can or must be substituted with the term "pleroma".

This is false. A quick check of the various texts (mss, fragments, papyri), and the translation of them, instantly demonstrates the falsehood of such an assertion. Additionally--as touched on before--in translating, the better methodology is to use 'one word assignment.' What that method is, is that for the target language (the language translated into) a single word will be assigned to a single word (or one of its grammatical forms) in the original tongue being translated out of. This is assigned word is pinned on the original word as consistently and accurately enough understood, and relative to immediate and overall contextual setting; as well as in accordance with precedence in idiomatic usage. One does not (and I guarantee you that such will not be found in scholarly handling of the texts, and translations) mix transliteration forms in with the translated text (of the target language) unless it is a proper noun, or its original meaning (referent) is in some material degree of question and uncertainty. The only instance of any exception to that rule-of-thumb that I am aware of, is when an original language word is held in transliterated form within an otherwise translated textual portion, so as to hold the translation aside for the moment. This tooling is aimed at getting the contextually more accurate translation in the target language, and to avoid misguided, misunderstood, and otherwise simply incorrect traditionally proposed translations, leaking in while translating. It is usually used in papers arguing for a more correct translation. We do have a pressing need to be as correct, and accurate as we can, on as practical a range of points as possible, when doing this kind of work. Edited September 27, 2012 by LimbicLoser

[immortal]

God's who are brothers and sister would be a simple answer. Lesser Gods. Matrilinearity. Airborne Pasta Deities.

 

Christianity is one of the other major religions of the world which has reached the highest form of philosophical thought and its very important to preserve such ideas.

 

It was the mangling of multiple passages together that had me wondering. It is definitely not customary to leave pleroma untranslated or substitute it in. Liturgists tend to object to people subbing in words - you take a translation and stick with it. None of the usual translations of Col 2:9 use pleroma.

 

If you substitute the word "pleroma" with "fullness" the meaning of the verse changes dramatically, in fact it leads to a different 'Father' altogether and almost a completely different religion. I think the English language should adopt words from different languages which conveys the meaning very clearly with a single precise word. The word pleroma should be substituted whenever fullness is used because that's how the term fullness should be understood.

 

What is Pleroma?

 

That is an almost completely non-christian (albeit valid) interpretation of the section. Aeons are a gnostic spirit being which we know most about from Tertullian's condemnation of the Valentinian Heresy - they are gnosticism, they enter Xty as part of a heresy. As a signed up member of the C of FSM I think both are Xty and Gn are equally preposterous and heretical - but you should not conflate the two.

 

The Ogdoad origin myth is a valid creation myth expressed in majority of the religions of the world. I still don't understand why the Pauline epistles are considered as part of the orthodox Bible, its very clear that the Christ of the gentiles is in no way comparable to the Christ of the orthodox Christians.

 

We must be talking about a different Xty

 

Indeed, the religion of the Greeks.

[Phi for All]

If you substitute the word "pleroma" with "fullness" the meaning of the verse changes dramatically, in fact it leads to a different 'Father' altogether and almost a completely different religion. I think the English language should adopt words from different languages which conveys the meaning very clearly with a single precise word. The word pleroma should be substituted whenever fullness is used because that's how the term fullness should be understood.

As I said before, a vague and deceptive term that can be used to mean whatever the church needs it to mean. A simple, beautiful, understandable word like "fullness" masked in the Greek to make it the plaything of the clergy. Unquantifiable power that can be adapted to any situation, mystical omnipotence that can warp even the reality it supposedly creates, and an unequivocal statement that the church is in charge of this in this existence. Manipulative, deceitful and abusive. Pleroma, bleh.

[mississippichem]

Funny. That seems to be the religion I practice. Or is this another one of the whole "nothing really exists because Descarte" philosophy ploys?

 

I think the intended meaning here (I speak for ydoaps here, hope I don't misrepresent him ) is that you may disagree with, let's say, an Eastern Orthodox or Gnostic Christian concerning theology almost as much as you would a Muslim or Shintoist.

 

I grew up Protestant, I had Catholic friends who didn't seem to worship the same God as I did.

 

Christianity is a HUGE umbrella term. It merely refers to people who, in some form or another, follow the teachings of a Jewish prophet/deity/demigod from the early A.D. or late B.C. years named Jesus of Nazareth.

[ydoaPs]

It merely refers to people who, in some form or another, pretend to follow the teachings of a Jewish prophet/deity/demigod from the early A.D. or late B.C. years named Jesus of Nazareth.

 

Fixed. There's not a single person that I'm aware of that actually follows what Jesus actually taught. With good reason; it turns out he was wrong. But by all means continue with your "Christianity" so long as you don't infringe on anyone's rights.

[mississippichem]

Fixed. There's not a single person that I'm aware of that actually follows what Jesus actually taught. With good reason; it turns out he was wrong. But by all means continue with your "Christianity" so long as you don't infringe on anyone's rights.

 

Fair enough.

 

You just told one of the forums most staunch atheist to continue with his (my) Christianity!

 

I removed myself from my own lack of belief for the sake of argument in that post.

 

Watch out for friendly fire. I'd hate to end up KIA at the hands of a fellow soldier.

[ydoaPs]

You just told one of the forums most staunch atheist to continue with his (my) Christianity!

 

That was a general "your" as "one's" sounds too formal for an internet forum to me.

[LimbicLoser]

This seems kind of hopeless--a total disregard for proven translation procedures, for sound and accurate knowledge, and for even for logical thinking--as far as I can tell. How is one then to translate Leviticus 19:29b where the LXX uses a form of the very same Greek word? (And there are many others which greatly stretch the present assertion so thinly that no one would properly run out on that thin ice.) How, even getting closer to home, would one then translate Romans 11:12c, 1 Corinthians 10:26 b, Galatians 4:4? No, there is nothing else that really needs be done here, immortal than to work towards understanding the fallacy you have committed in taking others who wish to mislead and brainwash into following for the sake of their own benefits alone. This is absolute nonsense which you have been putting forth here, yet I wish to work with you somehow (at least so as to ascertain the fluidness and agility of your working space), to see if I, along with others here, can help you correct that which is mistaken.

[mississippichem]

That was a general "your" as "one's" sounds too formal for an internet forum to me.

 

Ah. My apologies. The ambiguity of text without voice or body language never ceases to amaze me.

[immortal]

This seems kind of hopeless--a total disregard for proven translation procedures, for sound and accurate knowledge, and for even for logical thinking--as far as I can tell. How is one then to translate Leviticus 19:29b where the LXX uses a form of the very same Greek word? (And there are many others which greatly stretch the present assertion so thinly that no one would properly run out on that thin ice.) How, even getting closer to home, would one then translate Romans 11:12c, 1 Corinthians 10:26 b, Galatians 4:4? No, there is nothing else that really needs be done here, immortal than to work towards understanding the fallacy you have committed in taking others who wish to mislead and brainwash into following for the sake of their own benefits alone. This is absolute nonsense which you have been putting forth here, yet I wish to work with you somehow (at least so as to ascertain the fluidness and agility of your working space), to see if I, along with others here, can help you correct that which is mistaken.

 

I will take those verses one by one.

 

Leviticus 19:29 -

 

There are different forms of the word "Pleroma" and obviously those different forms gives us a specific guidance as to what meaning the word should take when it is translated.

 

Romans 11:12 -

 

 

Romans 11:25 - For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

 

I am going to quote a member's post from a Christian forum who clearly outlines how all these are connected.

 

 

I'm quite certain Paul's emphasis was on the word "fullness"

 

The "fullness" mentioned in Romans 11:25 is the same "fullness" as mentioned in Romans 11:12, John 1:16, Colossians 1:19, Romans 15:29, and Ephesians 1:22-23. It is the fullness of the covenantal inheritance in Christ which came to the gentiles when they were included as co-heirs in the blessing of Abraham and his seed, Jesus.

 

By comparing "fullness" (Greek: "pleroma" - Strong's #4138) in Romans 11:25 to its parallel usage in Romans 11:11-12, we see that the term speaks of the "riches" and "salvation" that came to the gentile world through Christ. These riches came to the gentiles via the "diminishing" of some Jews that were blinded during Christ's incarnational ministry but that would later convert in order to obtain "fullness" (Rom 11:11-12,14-23), the fullness of being in the blessing of Abraham and Christ (Gal 3:7-9,14-17,26-29). Paul was one of these such Jews whose initial blindness had been converted (Rom 11:1; 1 Tim 1:12-16), and there were many more at that then-present time which would be converted like him (Rom 11:5; 2 Cor 3:14-16). These first-century Jews were called a "remnant," and, according to Paul, were like the few that constituted the true Nation of Israel during the time of apostasy under Isaiah and also Elijah (Rom 11:5; cf. Rom 11:1-5; 9:27-29). So, the meaning of "fullness" in Romans 11:25 becomes plain from looking at Romans 11:11-12:

 

I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness? (Rom 11:11-12)

 

We see from this passage that "fullness" is the opposite reality to the "fall" and "diminishing" of some Jews, where "fall" and "diminishing" clearly mean the falling away from God's covenant, and "fullness" means the riches and salvation which come from being in covenant with Christ (see also: Rom 11:14-23).

 

The gentiles obtained this "fullness" (covenantal inheritance, salvation, and blessing) during St. Paul's ministry. In fact, Paul's entire ministry goal was to deliver this inheritance to the gentile populations (Acts 26:16-23; 20:32; 13:47; Rom 15:16,29; Eph 3:1-10; Rom 11:13; 2 Tim 1:11). Paul accomplished this mystery of God for the gentiles to become co-heirs with the Jews in Christ's New Covenant riches by the end of his lifetime (compare Acts 13:47/26:16-23/Eph 3:1-10 to 2 Tim 4:7,17). The Church is not still waiting for the gentiles to be offered up and approved by God (Rom 15:16) that they might obtain the fullness of inheritance and riches in Christ. The fullness of the gentiles came in no later than the completion of Paul's ministry. -preterist vision

 

Its very obvious that fullness means pleroma - the totality of divine powers which forms the body of Christ not the body of Christ made of human flesh, that's how it should be understood. For the Gentiles, Christ is a mythical Christ not a super naturalist Christ made of human flesh.

 

Galatians 4:4 -

 

 

Barnes' Notes on the BibleBut when the fulness of the time was come - The full time appointed by the Father; the completion (filling up, πλήρωμα plērōma,) of the designated period for the coming of the Messiah; see the Isaiah 49:7-8 notes; 2 Corinthians 6:2 note.

 

 

 

Do you have got any more verses to correct me? There is no ambiguity in what the term pleroma means, pleroma means the totality of divine powers (Aeons) which make up the body of Christ. Is that clear to you?

[John Cuthber]

"There is no ambiguity in what the term pleroma means, pleroma means the totality of divine powers (Aeons) which make up the body of Christ. Is that clear to you? "

No.

The body of Christ was mainly water, some proteins and fats some salts and quite a lot of calcium phosphate as the skeleton.

[Phi for All]

Its very obvious that fullness means pleroma - the totality of divine powers which forms the body of Christ not the body of Christ made of human flesh, that's how it should be understood.

Oh, THAT'S how it should be understood! How obvious! I'm so glad SOMEONE knows the real Truth!

 

I've been told on different occasions that pleroma was heaven, that it was everything in the universe, that it was just everything spiritual, that it was an actual living expression of God, an entity that housed other entities like Archons, and that it was the vessel of holiness whose equilibrium I had upset with my sinful, horrible human sin of sinning. It's definition shifted like the eyes of the clergymen who were talking to me.

 

Oh, um, but if pleroma is NOT the body of Christ made of human flesh, then why is the church the pleroma of God? Are you saying the church isn't human, or are you saying the church has divine powers? Can I see them?

[LimbicLoser]

Let me see here, then...

 

Do you have got any more verses to correct me?

I reason that it is important to make sure what has need correction has been corrected before offering more proof-texts to demonstrate the error here.

 

In the Greek translation Colossians 2:9 reads as this - hoti en auto katoikei pan to pleroma tes theotetos somatikos,...

This immediately above is what you had written in your post number 7, on page one. The assertion is incorrect. Do you understand how it is incorrect? Please respond honestly to this question. I will then go on to see if I can help you learn the more, and most, correct understandings on this matter, and a little bit and inflection and conjugation. I have deadlines coming up, and may be sluggish, but will try to stick with it.

[immortal]

Oh, THAT'S how it should be understood! How obvious! I'm so glad SOMEONE knows the real Truth!

 

I've been told on different occasions that pleroma was heaven, that it was everything in the universe, that it was just everything spiritual, that it was an actual living expression of God, an entity that housed other entities like Archons, and that it was the vessel of holiness whose equilibrium I had upset with my sinful, horrible human sin of sinning. It's definition shifted like the eyes of the clergymen who were talking to me.

 

Oh, um, but if pleroma is NOT the body of Christ made of human flesh, then why is the church the pleroma of God? Are you saying the church isn't human, or are you saying the church has divine powers? Can I see them?

 

 

And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. (Ephesians 1:22-23)

 

The church is the body of Christ and his body is not made of human flesh but made of the totality of divine powers(Aeons).

 

When you visit a Church one shouldn't worship Christ as an idol separate from oneself but as someone who resides in you whose body forms the totality of divine powers through which all other Aeons emanate from and the goal of every Christian is restoration to fullness i.e being one with God. The Christ is the one who reveals the Self with in you so that you can become having the same essence of the Father and the Son.

 

"The Son of God became man so that we might become God." - Athanasius.

Athanasius & The Deity of Christ - 1, Dr. Nick Needham

 

Athanasius & The Deity of Christ (2)

 

 

This is the very soul of Christianity, that we are made of the same essence of the Father and we can become the Father. Divinization (Christian)

 

Let me see here, then...

 

I reason that it is important to make sure what has need correction has been corrected before offering more proof-texts to demonstrate the error here.

 

This immediately above is what you had written in your post number 7, on page one. The assertion is incorrect. Do you understand how it is incorrect? Please respond honestly to this question. I will then go on to see if I can help you learn the more, and most, correct understandings on this matter, and a little bit and inflection and conjugation. I have deadlines coming up, and may be sluggish, but will try to stick with it.

 

One is open to the interpretation of the Pauline epistles and this Gnostic interpretation is as valid an interpretation as any other interpretation of the term fullness or pleroma. Are you claiming that these well educated scholars who argue that Paul was a Gnostic and that the verse of Collosians 2:9 should be interpreted in a Gnostic sense are brainwashed just like the Jihadhists? Are you crazy?

 

 

Pleroma

Main article: PleromaPleroma (Greek πληρωμα) generally refers to the totality of God's powers. The term means fullness, and is used in Christian theological contexts: both in Gnosticism generally, and in Colossians2.9.

 

Gnosticism holds that the world is controlled by evil archons, one of whom is the demiurge, the deity of the Old Testament who holds the human spirit captive.

 

The heavenly pleroma is the center of divine life, a region of light "above" (the term is not to be understood spatially) our world, occupied by spiritual beings such as aeons (eternal beings) and sometimes archons. Jesus is interpreted as an intermediary aeon who was sent from the pleroma, with whose aid humanity can recover the lost knowledge of the divine origins of humanity. The term is thus a central element of Gnostic cosmology.

 

Pleroma is also used in the general Greek language and is used by the Greek Orthodox church in this general form since the word appears under the book of Colossians. Proponents of the view that Paul was actually a gnostic, such as Elaine Pagels of Princeton University, view the reference in Colossians as something that was to be interpreted in the gnostic sense.

 

 

 

The term Pleroma represents the totality of God's powers which we call the Aeons. Its very clear and precise. That's how the term should be understood.

 

 

[John Cuthber]

"The church is the body of Christ "

I'm not swallowing that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_bread

 

"The term Pleroma represents the totality of God's powers which we call the Aeons. Its very clear and precise. That's how the term should be understood."

So, based on the experimental evidence, it is equivalent to this.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set

 

It would have been much easier if someone had said that in the first place.

Edited September 28, 2012 by John Cuthber