Bill wrote:
PS When I use the term proto-Gnostics I mean first--
from Gk. protos--and not to mean before or prior to.
You may have picked up on this,; nevertheless, I'm
telling you so as to not mislead you.
I appreciate you making this comment. The term proto in the sciences
certainly
Most on this list seem to very well informed so my observation may not be necessary. Regarding this current discussion about perfectionism and the letter of Ist John (especially 1:7-9) The Weslian view that a Christian does not sin after receiving the Holy Spirit depends heavily up wording in I
In a message dated 4/8/2004 6:26:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From my perspective, speech like this is
exclusionary and elitist.
If we understand that context (grammar, history, purpose , date, culture, etc.)
is critical to a full understanding of any scripture, then
Much to respond to, David; perhaps more than will
even be necessary.
You write If you really
are going to go that far in your magnification of education, then I will have to
step away and stand with Judy and her comments about how the Holy Spirit is
sufficient to reveal the Word of God
Bill wrote:
Is it truly a magnification of education to pass
on information which is well established and as old
as the Canon itself?
No, not at all. I was referring to your bold assertion that John cannot
be understood without first understanding Gnosticism. I'm not sure who,
if anyone,
Using scripture/pretext for promoting non-orthodox views i.e.
perfectionist understanding of regenerate HK.About a 1,000 yrs ago I met a
man who, while pressing his nose up to something in order to read it told me
that God had healed his eyes...(Say n'more, Say n'more..Know what I mean?
A nod's as
DON'T QUOTE A SINGLE VERSE PLEASE! Just take a paragraph or two to tell me
just what is is that you believe/practice/experience on this matter. Thanks,
Lance
- Original Message -
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: April 06, 2004 12:16
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk
David Miller wrote:
Gnosticism isn't really identified prior to the second
century ... and 1 John was written at the end of the
second century.
Terry wrote:
aren't you saying end of the FIRST century?
Yes, that is what I meant. Gnosticism is not really identified prior to
the second
8 matches
Mail list logo
