David says > I'm not sure we are all that far apart. You seem to see more disagreement between us than I do.
Good, David, that is encouraging. I hope you are right. Bill 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. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 7:25 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Gnosticism > 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. > > ---------- "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.
