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, understands Gnosticism. That's why I made some comments. Surely you are aware of how broad and varied the term Gnosticism is applied to a wide variety of beliefs. Bill wrote: > It's only when we hoard our knowledge and insist > upon a prior commitment from others that we have > magnified education; it's only then that we become > elitists. Are you sure it is *ONLY* when we do these things? You don't think elitism raises its head when we say things like, "you can't understand this book of the Bible unless you first understand Gnosticism." Or what about, "unless you know the Greek here, there is no way you will ever understand this passage." From my perspective, speech like this is exclusionary and elitist. Bill wrote: > The truth is that gnosticism and the knowledge > of such is not new news, nor is it obscure. > You have obviously run across it before. It is not obscure in the sense of never having been heard. The problem is that Gnosticism is an emotive term. We all know to Gnosticism is bad, but it is a relative VAGUE term in that it forms a huge umbrella for many religious doctrines and sects. Bill wrote: > I am sure Judy has as well. Not only that, but Judy has in the past argued that 1 John was written to counter Gnostics. :-) Bill wrote: > Is there anyone at TT who is unaware of the Gnostics? Maybe not, but is there anyone on TT who can explain Gnosticism with absolute certainty? Bill wrote: > The problem is not a question of their existence, > or even their existence at the end of the first > century, it is one of discerning what to do with > what we know about them. I think Gnosticism in the first century is difficult to be assertive about. We have basically three before us, don't we, in regards to the first century, who might possibly be associated with Gnosticism? We have Simon Magus, the Nicolaitanes, and Cerinthus. Who really is certain about what these three sects taught exactly? Also, those who call them Gnostics I think tend to lump all mystics of the period into that category of Gnosticism. While mysticism appears to be a characteristic of Gnosticism, I'm not sure it is helpful to lump all mystics into the category of Gnosticism. Bill wrote: > Do we say, yes, I John was probably written > to combat proto-gnostic if not full-blown > gnostic tendencies and teachings, and then use > what we know about this cult as an interpretive > grid through which to read I John? Oh, yes, I agree fully with this approach. This is a little different than saying that John was combating Gnostics and so without understanding Gnosticism, we cannot understand John. I fully agree that connecting some of the theology that evolved in the second century to its "proto-Gnostic" roots in the first century can be illuminating. Bill wrote: > or do we suppress what we know and read I John as if > the false prophets he mentions are either unidentifiable > or even hypothetical? I am committed to the former. > You are committed to the later. Oh, no, you misunderstand me. I'm with you in your commitment to the former, only we must temper our knowledge with the humility that it deserves. Bill wrote: > From this internal evidence it emerges that, if we are > to identify the heresy against which John writes, we > must find a system which denied that Jesus was the Son > or the Christ come in the flesh and which also viewed > righteousness and love as indifferent. Many have argued > that this system is the doctrine known as "docetism." > Derived from the Greek work dokein, "to seem," it > describes the view that Jesus was not a man in reality > but only in appearance. This teaching was condemned by > Ignatius, and this perhaps only ten years and not more > than twenty years after John's address. Ignatius has > lead a great many commentators to place the heretics > in the ranks of proto-Gnostics. Ok, I'm with you. And this historical knowledge helps us put into perspective why John was writing. We still must speculate about how much of this was direct in his day and how much was in anticipation of the problems coming in the second century. Your use of the word "proto-Gnostics" indicates that perhaps my former comments were not that far off. Bill wrote: > Moreover it is quite discernable that the controversy > which John's letters reflect concerns the doctrine of > the Incarnation. These proto-Gnostics believed that > matter was evil and were obsessed with the problems > raised not just by the physical world in general but > by the human body in particular. They were not just > Platonists; they were pagans through and through. > Hence they were immediately in difficulties with the > Christian worldview because it is such an essentially > material and relational religion. And these difficulties continue today. The problem is that if we use the term Gnostic, we really need to nail it down, if that is even possible. Some have argued with me because they do not recognize any dualism, such as spirit versus flesh, as being anything but Gnostic. I agree with you that the Gnostics took dualism far beyond the general Platonic viewpoint. Nevertheless, it really is an extension of this dualism, an extension of a dualism that is actually true and correct. Bill wrote: > They could not conceive how the Christ could become > Incarnate, still less have assumed a physical body > subject to the limitations of the fall. As for the > Christian's body, it was fundamental to their thought > that the body was a base prison in which the rational > or spiritual part of human beings was incarcerated, > and from which it needed to be released by gnosis. > They believed in salvation by enlightenment, the > imparting of an esoteric knowledge in some secret > initiation ceremony. The initiated were the truly > spiritual people; hence they despised the uninitiated > as doomed to an animal life on earth. There was thus > no love lost between these two groups. But by this you extend into viewpoints that are truly not found earlier than the second century, right? Hey, I don't know everything, but from my reading of history, this is my lame perspective. Bill wrote: > You asked if there was any evidence of gnosticism > in the first-century New Testament period. One > resident in first century Ephesus, who could > rightfully be described as Gnostic, was a man > named Cerinthus. I have always perceived Cerinthus as a kabbalistic Jew. If he lived today, I don't think anyone would consider him a Christian at all. He was basically a Joseph Smith of Judaism, claiming to have received revelation from an angel just like Joe Smith, but very much entrenched in Judaism. Bill wrote: > The essence of Cerinthus' error seems to have been > a severance of the man Jesus from the divine Christ > or Spirit. ... David, it seems to me that John's > arguments sound plausible if they are understood as > against Cerinthus and his Gnostic disciples. Certainly he does seem to hammer this particular message of Cerinthus, but Cerinthus also was real big on keeping the Mosaic law. Why didn't John hammer him on those issues if he was really addressing him particularly? Why not mention him by name? He was not shy to mention Diotrephes in his third epistle. Did you know that a sect in the second century actually attributed the writings of John, both the book of Revelation and the gospel of John, to Cerinthus? They denied them as being inspired on this basis. So here they were close to the time of Cerinthus, claiming that he wrote the very works which you submit were written in order to correct Cerinthus! Surely you can see why we need some humility in our speculations and considerations of the evidence. Bill wrote: > John's opponents denied that Jesus was the Christ > (I Joh 2.22) -- they disbelieved that the man Jesus > really was Christ Incarnate (1.1-5) and really was > the Son (2.23; 4.25; II Joh 7). Right, and we have those opponents today, but they do not go by the name of Gnostic. Aren't you concerned that when you say that 1 John was written to Gnostics, that those today who consider themselves far removed from Gnosticism will not consider how this Word applies to them today? Bill wrote: > They also denied that they were in any sense dominated > by or even subject to sin (the body problem mentioned > above): it did not inhere in their nature, display > itself in their behavior, or hinder their fellowship > with God (I Joh 1.6-10). Yet people today establish Gnostic beliefs by reading 1 John. Do you know how many people I have had articulate that they don't sin in their spirit, and that is what John meant, even though they sin in their flesh? This is how many interpret 1 John today. They come to a second century Gnostic belief, reading a work which you have suggested was written to counter the Gnostic heresy. Again, I ask, should we not have some humility, even tentativeness, about the conclusions we can draw from our knowledge of history? Bill wrote: > I Joh 2.27 "But the anointing which ye have received > of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man > teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of > all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as > it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." What > exactly is John attempting to communicate here, David? > Is he saying that Christians do not need teachers at > all? Is there no place in Christianity for educated, > Godly teachers? Are you suggesting that? Are you > comfortable with that conclusion? I'm not }:>) No, I'm not comfortable with those conclusions. Jesus gave us teachers when he ascended on high. Nevertheless, our salvation is not dependent upon them, rather they simply assist us with our sanctification, but even in regards to sanctification, they are not absolutely necessary. Bill wrote: > This is John telling confused Christians I don't think they were so confused. He said that he is not writing them because they do not know the truth. He said that they knew all things and that they knew the truth (1 John 2:20-21). Bill wrote: > that they have eternal life and they have fellowship > with the Father and the Son, and they have it apart > from special knowledge. They do not need to be taught > an esoteric form of gnosis to receive and participate > in these things. The anointing they had received > through Paul and Timothy and likely others including > John remains. It is from the Holy One; it is the Gospel > of Jesus Christ. It does not take secret knowledge > to know this truth. They do not need "teachers" in > this regard. Their anointing was trustworthy and true; > they should stick with it and not be deceived by false > teachers spouting special privileges. LOL. Sorry, Bill, but do you know how this comes across? You read John as saying that they had the anointed teachers, Paul and Timothy, and they did not need any other teachers like these Gnostic ones. LOL. Bill, it just seems to me that you don't want to believe what is staring us in the face. John said that they had an unction from the Holy One! They KNEW THE TRUTH. They needed no teachers. They had their own anointing abiding within them. So he was pointing them to the Holy Spirit within them for understanding, urging them to trust Him over the teachings of others. Bill wrote: > ... I do not get the impression you are looking to change. I'm just discussing. I very well may change if you lead me to knowledge that I lack, or to an understanding that is better than I have obtained thus far. I consider my conclusions about Gnostics and history like this VERY incomplete. It is that incompleteness that causes me to raise questions to you. For all I know, you have had access to libraries unavailable to me, or to an understanding that has never been articulated to me before. On the other hand, if I temper you in what knowledge you have, that might be a good thing too. We will see which way it plays out. Bill wrote: > I like you very much and I am deeply grieved > by our impasse. I'm sorry to hear that. I have not been grieved. We should not be grieved with one another. I thought we were just talking. Bill wrote: > And I really do not want to get into > a tit for tat with you. Me either. I don't have a lot of time. Bill wrote: > Your mind seems to be made up. Mine is likewise. I do > not agree with you and you do not agree with me. Interesting. I'm not sure we are all that far apart. You seem to see more disagreement between us than I do. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
