-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus: Gnosticism?!
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
I
Do you really think you can come in here and just sweep us away with your supposed knowledge of what is truth or not? I mean really?
Rocky S
Christian Goth
Sorry "allegorical incoherent mess' seemed to offend you, that was not my intention. I was merely offering a biblical answer to the related thread, not trying to sweep any one away with supposed knowledge of what is truth or something. I guess my choice of words offended you, and for that I am sorry.
Last edited:
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
Your "biblical" answer is worthless since the Bible is one incoherent mess within itself
outhouse
Atheistically
Rocky S
Christian Goth
In what way is the bible incoherent? I mean I used to be an atheist and then later agnostic and maybe mixed in with some gnostic ideas, then back to atheist. It didn't make a lot of sense to me either.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
I am going to ask you two questions. They're off topic but I think relevant.
Are bats birds?
Do rabbits chew their cud?
Rocky S
Christian Goth
Hmm I am sorry, but I do not understand what you are asking.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
Those are very simple yes or no questions.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Thanks for your input. Welcome here.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Agreed; that should be the foremost concern of the true believers.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
In fact NT is not a book, in a real sense; it is a collection of books; none of them written by Jesus himself; hence its being incoherent; it has no system of its own, in my opinion.
Bob Dixon
>implying
And nevermind when he repeatedly called himself "Son of God" and told others that they, too, are that.
Shermana
Heretic
All the more reason why I consider Paul a false apostle, as did the Ebionites.
1 John is one of my favorite books, want to discuss the details of what it actually says regarding this? If anything, 1 John seems to be a defense against the Pauline-type anti-Law groups. "Sin is Lawlessness". What do you see in 2 and 3 John that are anything against Gnosticism specifically? They as well seem to be against the gentile ideas floating around the time.
If anything, the non-Jewish "Gnostic" groups were perhaps involved in the Pauline movement to try to break away the Jewish influence from Christianity AND Gnosticism at the time.
As for Jude, I see that as more of an attack on any and all groups that try to say you have freedom to debauch rather than aiming squarely at Gnosticism.
As for Gospel of Philip being an allegorical mess, I see no reason for that accusation against it, perhaps you'd like to specifically discuss these things without the blanket statements so we can examine it in detail? I think Philip is not a mess at all. Gospel of Thomas has some definite signs of interpolations and edits over the years, but I don't see it as a 'mess", if anything it's probably very close to what the early proto "Sayings gospels" looked like which may have influenced the later works.
I also think there's a world of difference between the earlier Gnostics and the Sethians and Ophites which were more late 2nd century.
Last edited:
Rocky S
Christian Goth
This may take a bit so bare with me I hope you like to read lol. 1st John is also one of my favorite books of the bible I studied it for about a year or so but that was about 3 years ago, I also taught it at a church, it is a very interesting epistles, here goes: 1st John is not really about anti-law group that fallowed Paul as it is about a problem concerning false teaching as is 2nd john and 3rd john and Jude.What false teaching? Early Gnosticism that infiltrated the church of Asia minor. Not gnostics in general but teachers that were calling them selves teachers of the gospel at time the letter was written. To bring the epistle in its context I will give a series of gnostic teaching and show were the apostle John refutes them. One of the first teachings John refutes is this. These Gnostic's were influenced by philosophers such as Plato. which advocated a dualism that the spirit of men could not be polluted with sin no matter what is done in the body or with the faculties or deeds. Also, that their understanding of hidden knowledge(gnosis) made them a kind of spiritual elite who were above the normal distinction of right or wrong. These issues or addressed in 1 John 1:8-10 and also 3:4-12. Another one is that Gnostic's did accept some form of deity but denied his humanity, or the hypostatic union of Christ meaning 100% God and 100% man not half god and half man. And that he was not God incarnate, this is refuted in chapter 4:1-6,14-21. and 5:1-12. Another one was that Jesus's Body was not physical but only seemed physical known as Docetism, addressed in 1:1-4 and 4:2,3.. plz read these versus they are a good read perhaps will open up the subject matter of first J. Oh 2nd john specifically is vs 7-10 and 3rd john verse 11.
yes, thats right they did. but not concerning 1st john.
right I agree but the gnostics were among those groups. Clement of Rome address it as well not long after Jude.
That would be alright to discuss. Wow probably need to start another thread lol. now I admit I have not studied the gospel of Philip but I have Thomas, Philip is not quite as bad from what I have read.
I agree.
Shermana
Heretic
1 John 4:1-6 says nothing about Jesus being God incarnate, where does it?
Same with 14-21. Where are you getting this? At best it says "He is in God and God is in Him". That may sound like GOd incarnate to you, but it's nothing at all what you're saying. The idea that Jesus was God incarnate was completely unknown to the early church until around Tertullian's time and may have been influenced by Gnostic influence even. The early Church most likely regarded Jesus as the "Wisdom" of God, the personified "Wisdom" or "Logos" who was the Firstborn Angel, a concept largely forgotten since the 1st century A.D. Justin Martyr even calls Jesus the "Angel of God".
I should warn you, I pounce on Trinitarian claims whenever possible.
Likewise with 5:1-12, you have to be reading it way out of context something that's not in the text to get it to mean Jesus is God incarnate. It says nothing of the sort. If you feel it does, post which particular verses you feel support your case and I will proceed to shred them.
Last edited:
Rocky S
Christian Goth
What is your beliefs about Jesus? are you saying he is an angel or a good man or perhaps a prophet, or just a cult leader, a teacher, a rabbi or didn't exist at all? Oh and the logos idea made famous by clement of Alexandra and Origon is heretical they were influenced by Gnosticism. And concerning the Trinity also read John 5:7 they are actually over 230 passages of scripture concerning the trinity, even in the old testament. I could give you them if you would like if you think it would help. Make sure you read 5:7 from KJV or a Bishops bible, Tyndale, Young's or even a Douay Bile. I know the claims that the verse was added, that verse is gone from NIV or a NASB or a ESV those were taken out by Westcott and Hortt and are corrupt version. I just don't get how you cant see that first John and is refuting gnosticism, which is accepted by just about every christian on this planet even by catholics as to its subject matter. Every bible commentary That is out there or theological studies or the library or just google gnosticism and 1st John or wikipedia. I guess the God incarnate or God in the flesh threw you off... In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the word Was God. And the word became flesh and dealt among us (the Gospel of John chapter 1:2,14)
Shermana
Heretic
I will not entertain anything of the sort that says that what you're referring to in 1 John 5:7 is not an interpolated verse, sorry. Especially when you say "Corrupted version" as if that somehow trumps the facts that the verse doesn't show up in the Greek until the 16th century. I assume you think those versions which contain it aren't corrupted, "Just because", right? I guess all those scribes must have kept it out of the Greek all that time just because it slipped their minds. If you want to start a thread on why 1 John 5:7 (Comma Johannum) should be read as you do, start a thread on the subject.
As for calling the Logos idea "heretical", nice try, but that's what Jews seemingly believed long before them. If you want to debate these ideas, feel free to start an appropriate thread and let me know when you make them, I'll definitely be there. I have argued this extensively. And no, the JWs are far from the only or first people to render it as such. The Arians were correct in that regard. But then again, maybe these ideas are pertinent to this thread too I suppose, so if you want to debate these issues, prepare an actual argument with evidence and details without things like "The JWs are a cult" or use of dubious "rules" like "Colwell's rule" as matter of fact. As for the idea of "a god was the word", be aware that angels were in fact called "gods" in the OT.
As for John 1:1, it should read as the NWT and the many other versions preceding it translated it, "And a god was the word". I will not debate that on this thread. If you want to start a debate on how to translate the anathrous Theos of John 1:1, start a thread, I'll defiinitely be there too.
As for what I think he is, I think he's the Firstborn Created Angel, the highest of the Angels. The "Wisdom" of God incarnated as the first heavenly created being. It's actually quite similar in ways to the idea of the Gnostic "Sophia" being a personified entity of Wisdom. And it's completely scriptural. See Proverbs 8 and Wisdom of Solomon 7-9, though I'd guess you don't accept WoS.
Again, what 1 John is refuting if anything is the idea that you don't have to obey the Law of Moses or the teachings of Jesus. I don't think at the time it was written these later "Gnostic" ideas had even developed yet. Do you have a website or commentary that discusses this perhaps? If anything, what 1 John refutes is exactly what the modern Churches teach today. The type of mentalities that Churches teach today are little different than the actual doctrines of what is called "Gnosticism".
Here is a website that follows your "Anti-Gnostic" conclusions, except we see that what they see it counters isn't exactly "Gnostic" as it is the anti-Law, "Freedom in Christ" type mentalities that involve not having to actually obey his teachings:
http://perspective.org.au/sermonseries/142/-1-john---counterfeit-christianity
Tell me where you see any of what you're saying listed there that doesn't follow under my own criteria.
If anything, the "Anti-Gnostic" idea behind 1 John I think is a smokescreen from the same groups that fall into the traps that John is warning against.
As for calling the Logos idea "heretical", nice try, but that's what Jews seemingly believed long before them. If you want to debate these ideas, feel free to start an appropriate thread and let me know when you make them, I'll definitely be there. I have argued this extensively. And no, the JWs are far from the only or first people to render it as such. The Arians were correct in that regard. But then again, maybe these ideas are pertinent to this thread too I suppose, so if you want to debate these issues, prepare an actual argument with evidence and details without things like "The JWs are a cult" or use of dubious "rules" like "Colwell's rule" as matter of fact. As for the idea of "a god was the word", be aware that angels were in fact called "gods" in the OT.
As for John 1:1, it should read as the NWT and the many other versions preceding it translated it, "And a god was the word". I will not debate that on this thread. If you want to start a debate on how to translate the anathrous Theos of John 1:1, start a thread, I'll defiinitely be there too.
As for what I think he is, I think he's the Firstborn Created Angel, the highest of the Angels. The "Wisdom" of God incarnated as the first heavenly created being. It's actually quite similar in ways to the idea of the Gnostic "Sophia" being a personified entity of Wisdom. And it's completely scriptural. See Proverbs 8 and Wisdom of Solomon 7-9, though I'd guess you don't accept WoS.
Again, what 1 John is refuting if anything is the idea that you don't have to obey the Law of Moses or the teachings of Jesus. I don't think at the time it was written these later "Gnostic" ideas had even developed yet. Do you have a website or commentary that discusses this perhaps? If anything, what 1 John refutes is exactly what the modern Churches teach today. The type of mentalities that Churches teach today are little different than the actual doctrines of what is called "Gnosticism".
Here is a website that follows your "Anti-Gnostic" conclusions, except we see that what they see it counters isn't exactly "Gnostic" as it is the anti-Law, "Freedom in Christ" type mentalities that involve not having to actually obey his teachings:
http://perspective.org.au/sermonseries/142/-1-john---counterfeit-christianity
Tell me where you see any of what you're saying listed there that doesn't follow under my own criteria.
If anything, the "Anti-Gnostic" idea behind 1 John I think is a smokescreen from the same groups that fall into the traps that John is warning against.
Last edited: