Gnostic Elements in Early Catholicism

[LionHeart777]

also there is the passage about being handed over to the jailer in one or more of the Gospels. I know you’ve commented on that in another post (I think) but it is used I think and i believe has also been used to refer to purgatory by at least 1 ECF.

this article may be relevent to the thread:

I found it posted in another forum

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0003chap.asp

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

also there is the passage about being handed over to the jailer in one or more of the Gospels. I know you’ve commented on that in another post (I think) but it is used I think and i believe has also been used to refer to purgatory by at least 1 ECF.

this article may be relevent to the thread:

I found it posted in another forum

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0003chap.asp

Yes, at least one ECF used the jailer reference and I believe incorrectly as the context has nothing to do with the afterlife. Perhaps the pervasive gnostic influence led some ECF’s to read that influence back into scripture passages. Origen for example had a field day with the book of Leviticus’ unclean references, Job’s “can pure come from impure” as well as David’s “in sin did my mother conceive me” regarding the theology of corruption/uncleanness of the flesh.

 

[Nicene]

I am wanting to broaden the idea of gnostic influence beyond simply purgatory. If an idea is found in gnostic thought but not in scripture, then emerges in the ECF’s, it is reasonable to conclude a gnostic rather than a biblical source for the idea found in the ECF’s.

On the other hand, if an idea is found in gnostic thought, biblical thought, and also in the ECF’s, it is reasonable to conclude that a truth was providentially transmitted through BOTH gnostic and biblical sources.

Ergo Jesus is Mithras and the whole of christianity is based on the Mithras cult.

 

[LionHeart777]

Daniel,

here is the quote I was referring to, it’s from Cyprian of Carthage:

‘The strength of the truly believing remains unshaken; and with those who fear and love God with their whole heart, their integrity continues steady and strong. For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace * is given. Yet virginity is not therefore deficient in the Church, nor does the glorious design of continence languish through the sins of others. The Church, crowned with so many virgins, flourishes; and chastity and modesty preserve the tenor of their glory. Nor is the vigor of continence broken down because repentance and pardon are facilitated to the adulterer. It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory; it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord" (Letters 51[55]:20 [A.D. 253]).’

catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp

(an)other passage(s) in the NT cited as evidence is the one(s) regarding the warnings against blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and forgiveness of this not being granted in this age nor in the age to come…

I think there are some reasons to believe in Purgatory (coming from someone who once flat out rejected it)

1. The ECF’s taught it
2. It is possible that the NT alludes to it
3. Orthodox Jews still offer prayers for the dead
4. II Macabees teaches prayers for the dead (maybe another thread could be started on the Deuterocanonical (did I get that right?) Books

catholic.com/library/Purgatory.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0511sbs.asp

there’s a couple more tracts

Obviously, I am arguing for the Catholic position but am myself not Catholic. I’m strongly considering becoming Catholic. I still am TRYING to look at things objectively, although I think I definately have a biase.

I would not take my arguments, as I said before, as that of a Catholic apologist, there are many around here who do a good job of that–those tracts would also fit that bill

I see your argument…but I just think that it is speculation. Granted, you think that it’s legitimate speculation, but there are other ways to argue the Catholic faith based on the what authority the see of Rome actually has (obviously another thread.)

peace

Nick,

also you never did answer why you asked me if I had a Catholic family member?

OCD people have a hard time letting things go*

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Ergo Jesus is Mithras and the whole of christianity is based on the Mithras cult.

No, the Sacred Scripture is inspired of God, the ECF’s are not inspired. Gnosticism skips over scripture and lands on the ECF’s; the conclusion seems obvious to me.

 

[Truthstalker]

Ergo Jesus is Mithras and the whole of christianity is based on the Mithras cult.

The either-or scenario? Reality is more complex than that. Can you cede the possibility that somewhere, in some thing, the Catholic Church has done something or is doing something that is not 100% descended from Sacred Tradition or the Scriptures? I suspect you confuse indefectability with infallibility.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Daniel,

here is the quote I was referring to, it’s from Cyprian of Carthage:

“…it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord” (Letters 51[55]:20 [A.D. 253]).’

catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp

(an)other passage(s) in the NT cited as evidence is the one(s) regarding the warnings against blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and forgiveness of this not being granted in this age nor in the age to come…

1. The ECF’s taught it
2. It is possible that the NT alludes to it
3. Orthodox Jews still offer prayers for the dead
4. II Macabees teaches prayers for the dead (maybe another thread could be started on the Deuterocanonical (did I get that right?) Books

…
peace

Nick,

also you never did answer why you asked me if I had a Catholic family member?

OCD people have a hard time letting things go

Cyprian’s words “cleansed and long purged by fire” could have been taken directly frm the Pistis Sophia. He was from North Africa where Valentinus, Basilides, and Carpocrates were gnostic leaders. Cyprian also taught the idea of stain attached to birth into flesh. Jesus intent re sin against the Holy Spirit is to teach the seriousness of speaking against him, not an idea of the possibility of forgiveness after death.

If purgatory is true it would have been central to the teaching of the “good news” from the beginning. because it would be good news if there is an opportunity to be cleansed after death and if the blood of Christ is insufficient to make one pure during their lifetime.

The Jewish Mourner’s Kaddish says nothing to imply purgatory as far as I can tell.

re family member, I am just curious if maybe family connections lead to interest in a philosophy

 

[CentralFLJames]

No, the Sacred Scripture is inspired of God, the ECF’s are not inspired. Gnosticism skips over scripture and lands on the ECF’s; the conclusion seems obvious to me.

We have a wee problem here. It seems to me that you have a dead-lock situation or a circular co-dependency. Who told you that the scriptures are inspired?
Don’t you imagine that the ECF’s had a role to play in selecting scripture and witnessing to the faith and keeping it alive so The Church could declare what was scripture?

If Gnosticism was ever part of the Catholic Church then it would have manifest itself in the downstream sects. It is Protestantism that keeps trying to find ever changing new “mystical truths” and new denominations de-jur from scripture. I would suggest that if Gnosticism ever existed in Catholicism it found its host too hostile to its existence and jumped ship to Protestantism. Might it be that Sola Scriptura is direct evidence of Gnosticism and might we say The Catholic Church has exorcised itself of it at Trent?

James

 

[LionHeart777]

Cyprian also taught the idea of stain attached to birth into flesh.

where did he teach this and what is it’s relevance to you, or me?

in what way does it contradict orthodoxy? (i’m not saying it does or doesn’t I just like to investigate things for myself.)

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

where did he teach this and what is it’s relevance to you, or me?

in what way does it contradict orthodoxy? (i’m not saying it does or doesn’t I just like to investigate things for myself.)

“The only thing that he (the infant) has done is that, being born after the flesh as a descendant of Adam, he has contracted from that first birth the ancient contagion of death.” Cyprian, Epistle 64, 250 A.D.

also Origen:

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. .” (Origen, in Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

This is a gnostic idea that the flesh is evil. Manicheans and Augustine taught original sin was transmitted by sexual intercourse. The sacred scripture teaches infants are innocent, not to be despised, for “their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 18).

In Romans 5, all are condemned because “all have sinned,” not that they have inherited the sin of Adam. The gnostic have had a field day with Paul’s words in Romans 5, but it does not say what they want it to say: that infants are condemned by inheriting the sin of Adam in their conception.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

We have a wee problem here. It seems to me that you have a dead-lock situation or a circular co-dependency. Who told you that the scriptures are inspired?
Don’t you imagine that the ECF’s had a role to play in selecting scripture and witnessing to the faith and keeping it alive so The Church could declare what was scripture?

If Gnosticism was ever part of the Catholic Church then it would have manifest itself in the downstream sects. It is Protestantism that keeps trying to find ever changing new “mystical truths” and new denominations de-jur from scripture. I would suggest that if Gnosticism ever existed in Catholicism it found its host too hostile to its existence and jumped ship to Protestantism. Might it be that Sola Scriptura is direct evidence of Gnosticism and might we say The Catholic Church has exorcised itself of it at Trent?

James

The church did not declare what was scripture. The scripture declares itself to be scripture. The chronology is as follows:

1. Jesus appoints the apostles and promises the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth.
2. The Holy Spirit descends on the apostles at Pentecost.
3. Gifts of prophecy and revelation are distributed to the church.
4. Miracles accompany the preaching of the gospel.
5. The apostles and prophets write letters to individuals and to the churches.
6. The writings of the prophets and memoirs of the apostles are recognized as they are written and distributed.
7. Christians are given the individual responsibility to distinguish between the spirit of truth and error.
8. Justin Martyr refers to the above in his own writing, and the ECF’s also quote most of the books of these memoirs and writings.
9. The ECF’s mix error with truth in their exposition of the memoirs of apostles and writings of the prophets.
10. The earliest ECF writings make reference to an accepted body of inspired literature as distinct from their own.

As I stated in the OP, gnosticism in blatant form was identified and rejected by the ECF’s, but numerous other significant gnostic elements common to Roman popular thought were incorporated by the ECF’s mostly unintentionally.

Yes, Protestantism has elements of gnostic thought such as the experience of salvation in “evangelical” circles, the “sinner’s prayer” for salvation, rejection of water baptism as necessary for salvation, and last but not least, the notion of the transmission of original sin by sexual intercourse, that every tiny baby is stained with sin because it is born in Adam’s flesh.

 

[LionHeart777]

“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Psalms 51:5 (King James Version Study Bible, Red-letter Edition)

what is your understanding of this text?

thx for the source, I appreciate it so I could check it out and have it to reference.

I’m not sure if I see a conradiction to Catholic teaching in that quote from Cyprian of Carthage…someone correct me if I’m wrong

Daniel I know that you will say it’s gnostic b/c you believe that the doctrine of original sin is gnostic in origin if I’m not mistaken.

I disagree, but the Eastern Orthodox don’t share the Latin view on original sin

this is where the whole , what authority does the Roman Bishop have ? comes in (again another thread if anyone wants to discuss b/c this is something that I’ve been looking at a bit)

*not that that thread hasn’t been done a few times already probably

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Psalms 51:5 (King James Version Study Bible, Red-letter Edition)

what is your understanding of this text?

thx for the source, I appreciate it so I could check it out and have it to reference.

I’m not sure if I see a conradiction to Catholic teaching in that quote from Cyprian of Carthage…someone correct me if I’m wrong

Daniel I know that you will say it’s gnostic b/c you believe that the doctrine of original sin is gnostic in origin if I’m not mistaken.

I disagree, but the Eastern Orthodox don’t share the Latin view on original sin

this is where the whole , what authority does the Roman Bishop have ? comes in (again another thread if anyone wants to discuss b/c this is something that I’ve been looking at a bit)

*not that that thread hasn’t been done a few times already probably

There is no contradiction between Cyprian and Catholic teaching but between Catholic teaching and sacred scripture that says little ones are not to be despised (see Matthew 18). In Cyprian Catholicism infants must be baptized to remove sin, but there is no infant baptism in sacred scripture that says “But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you WHOLEHEARTEDLY OBEYED the form of teaching to which you were entrusted.” Romans 6:17

 

[CentralFLJames]

…
The chronology is as follows:

1. Jesus appoints the apostles and promises the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth.
2. The Holy Spirit descends on the apostles at Pentecost.
3. Gifts of prophecy and revelation are distributed to the church.
4. Miracles accompany the preaching of the gospel.
5. The apostles and prophets write letters to individuals and to the churches.
6. The writings of the prophets and memoirs of the apostles are recognized as they are written and distributed.
7. Christians are given the individual responsibility to distinguish between the spirit of truth and error.
8. Justin Martyr refers to the above in his own writing, and the ECF’s also quote most of the books of these memoirs and writings.
9. The ECF’s mix error with truth in their exposition of the memoirs of apostles and writings of the prophets.
10. The earliest ECF writings make reference to an accepted body of inspired literature as distinct from their own.

As I stated in the OP, gnosticism in blatant form was identified and rejected by the ECF’s, but numerous other significant gnostic elements common to Roman popular thought were incorporated by the ECF’s mostly unintentionally.

Yes, Protestantism has elements of gnostic thought such as the experience of salvation in “evangelical” circles, the “sinner’s prayer” for salvation, rejection of water baptism as necessary for salvation, and last but not least, the notion of the transmission of original sin by sexual intercourse, that every tiny baby is stained with sin because it is born in Adam’s flesh.

Whoa not so fast. Let’s back up and fix a few things here.
#1 - let’s not forget that Jesus also promised His Church (not churches) that “the gates of hell would not prevail” (assuming you accept ALL of the Catholic Scriptures as inspired as The Catholic Church has asserted in 382 AD at the Council of Rome).

#4 - What constitutes “gospel”? Did everyone who preached “a gospel” get a miracle? Can we conclude that anyone who preaches a false gospel did not receive signs and miracles? Are you claiming that these signs and wonders are what ratifies scripture? Did these same signs and wonders accompany the new gospel that Luther taught in the 1500s?

#5 The apostles and disciples were mostly illiterate fishermen who could not read or write. They MOSTLY SPOKE and passed on their traditions and faith my word of mouth. Paul and Luke did not personally know Jesus and these come later to write things down.

#6 And you have biblical evidence of this that was written at the the time rather than after the fact? You have the cart before the horse. When does scripture exist as scripture - at the moment it is first spoken or at the time it is first put to pen and parchment decades later? There were literally hundreds of what we now know to be false heretical teachings and new gospels in circulation in the post apostolic era - even in the time of the apostles there were false gospels being spread by word of mouth and who knows if any of these other false ones were written down and sent afar and field and later lost? The Jews as a people certainly did not recognize ANY of what was circulating as written gospel as valid and in-fact declared it as false in the council of Jamiaha in 90 AD. So how can you say “the scripture was recognized as valid” - by who? How do YOU know WHAT was recognized as valid and by WHO?

#7 Huh? Where is this in scripture? Who gave this authority? Is this a new secret teaching? THIS sound like mystery religion to me. THIS sounds gnostic! Are you a “Gnostic in the Rye” so to speak here to save us from Gnosticism and yourself?

#8 How do you know who are “The Church Fathers”? Who told you which are the ECFs? Is there a manifest written down somewhere? Catholics know who they are - but who told you who is an ECF if not The Catholic Church? Where there other writers of the period who were ignored? Would you call the heretic Marcion who was trying to re-write all the Pauline texts (and nearly succeeded) to strike all the OT from all early church writings an ECF? If no - why not? He had a quill and parchment and knew some of the same people that the Catholic ECFs knew. What of the other books mentioned by other writers of the period and the 300 or so other books written in the period. Why don’t we consider these others ECFs? The bottom line is EVERYTHING you have come to accept as cannon extends part and parcel FROM the Catholic Church telling you this. If gnosticism exists in the early Church then it also exists in the same sources that ratify what you call Scripture. Can you accept scripture as “inspired” while rejecting the validity of the men who told you it was inspired? Or is your thesis premised on scripture containing gnostic elements as well?

#9 Who told you that the ECF’s mix error with truth in their own writings? Which is error and what is truth? Are you accepting the Catholic Church’s authority to declare heresy in the ECFs or are you making your own claim at infallability to tell us which ECF is in error?

#10 But no ECF has a complete cannon on his own. So how is it than ANY ECF was saved without the complete written word of God before the bible is published by the Gnostic Church? How do Protestants avoid gnosticism 1500 years distant to become “the pure” Church.

Please… your entire thesis is circular on Sola Scriptura (which is a neo-Christian idea of the 1500’s) and is dependent on the assumption that it self presented itself out of the Gnostic Church that told us it was inspired and brought us scripture. Your thesis is laughable…sorry…

The only positive thing I get going away is the notion that scola scriptura just might be a gnostic idea. Given that sola fide was in fact derived from an apostolic-era heresy (Antimonianism) which Luther resurrected there is in fact a high probability that all of Protestantism IS GNOSTIC derived.

James

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

James,
The Protestants are gnostic in some respects as are the Catholics and the ECF’s in many respects.

See my replies below.

#1 - let’s not forget that Jesus also promised His Church (not churches) that “the gates of hell would not prevail” .
…
REPLY: Yes, one church and gates of hell meaning death that Jesus overcame in his resurrection. The scriptures were already known and circulated among the churches within the first century AD.

#4 - What constitutes “gospel”? Did everyone who preached “a gospel” get a miracle?

REPLY: Luther did not teach the gospel but a Catholic/Lutheran version. As for the true gospel: Mark 16:20 “Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.”
Acts 14:3
“So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.”
Hebrews 2:3-4 “This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.”

#5 The apostles and disciples were mostly illiterate fishermen who could not read or write. They MOSTLY SPOKE and passed on their traditions and faith my word of mouth.

REPLY: Those apostles and prophets who wrote things down were quite literate. Paul said,“I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:12), and Luke said in Luke 1:1-4 “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the CERTAINTY of the things you have been taught.”

#6 And you have biblical evidence of this that was written at the the time rather than after the fact?

REPLY: Scripture contains the evidence of its own reliability, and we have many fragments of the New testament books dating from 50 AD to early 2nd century. There were many false writings, and the onus is on the reader to discern true from false. An important test of truth is evidence of gnostic and judaizing elements in the false writings; also, the consistency with the messianic prophecies of the Hebrew scriptures. One can still pick up the texts claiming to be of God and make a determination of true and false.

#7 Huh? Where is this in scripture? Who gave this authority? Is this a new secret teaching? THIS sound like mystery religion to me.

REPLY: John in writing to all Christian said the following in 1 John 4:1-6
“Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.”
2 Peter 1:15
“And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.”
2 Peter 2:1
“But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.”

#8 How do you know who are “The Church Fathers”? Who told you which are the ECFs? Is there a manifest written down somewhere?

REPLY: The ECF’s is a term coined by people who looked to certain early writers who wrote on Christian topics. I would not agree that all were Christians; some espoused destructive heresies. But these early professed Christian writings can be used as evidence of the recognition and use of sacred scripture. The scripture contains no gnosticism whereas the ECF’s were products of Roman society and in several cases former gnostics themselves.

#9 Who told you that the ECF’s mix error with truth in their own writings?

REPLY: See #7 above. Notice the words are written to all Christians not to a magesterium.

#10 But no ECF has a complete cannon on his own. So how is it than ANY ECF was saved without the complete written word of God before the bible is published by the Gnostic Church?

REPLY: Again, Protestants are not the true church nor the Catholic, due to too much gnosticism. If any ECF is saved it is because they obeyed the true gospel and remained faithful until death. The true gospel was known by what they had, and evidence indicates they had most if not all, perhaps more, of what we have, but still many were not diligent enough to distinguish truth from error.

 

[Jimzz12]

What about gnostic influences in Islam? I willing to wager they got a few.

 

[CentralFLJames]

REPLY: Yes, one church and gates of hell meaning death that Jesus overcame in his resurrection. The scriptures were already known and circulated among the churches within the first century AD.

1.2 billion Catholics disagree with your private interpretation that “the gates of hell” meant death as did billions more before Catholics before them. Do you have any ECF that backs this personal opinion?

As for scriptures there were over 300 other texts being passed around as scripture before the NT became cannon. To say the scriptures were already known without knowing “by whom they were known” is about as useless a statement as saying Christianity was pure in the minds and hearts of “Christians”. Who were these men and women? The answer is they were people who followed a Catholic Bishop or Priest. Thus the scriptural phrase “the Church is pillar and foundation of truth”.

REPLY: Luther did not teach the gospel but a Catholic/Lutheran version. As for the true gospel: Mark 16:20 “Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.”
Acts 14:3
Hebrews 2:3-4

You ducked my question simultaneous with injecting the idea of a pre-reformation denominationalism. You have no evidence of this. If scripture is true then there had to be some :“true Christians” some place to carry forward the “pure” Christian teachings. There was no other bible other than the Catholic Bible. Who were these other Christians? Where did they live. Who taught them? Few could read and write till the 1800s. Who was living the pure gospel that came out of the gnostic influenced Catholic Church that assembled the gospels? Were only educated men and women who could read for themselves the true Christians? It seems like your theory lands almost everyone in hell unless they could read or write and does not account for the many millions of Christians who existed in the Catholic Church under the Catholic Teaching. Are you saying God is so incompetent that he will permit hundreds of millions of people to die before he lets the printing press be invented and a bible in the hands of anyone who wants it? This is silly…

REPLY: Those apostles and prophets who wrote things down were quite literate. Paul said,“I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:12), and Luke said in Luke 1:1-4 “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the CERTAINTY of the things you have been taught.”

OK you mentioned Paul and Luke and most would agree that these two men were at least educated. But what about the rest of the apostles? Do you think mere fishermen could read and write and Greek? Don’t you really think they would be rather be lawyers or scribes or accountants etc. that paid a higher wage rather than mere dirt poor fishermen if they could read and write? Most of the original apostles most certainly COULD NOT read or write. Their texts were written by others - educated scribes who could translate Aramaic to Greek and you personally do not have the slightest clue that anything written is not a fish story without the Catholic Church telling you it is authentic. How do you even have a clue that scripture was written by a real disciple of Christ and not by some scribe of the Sanhedrin who was attempting to purify Judaism by removing the escalating “messiahism” and Zionist sects that were factionalizing Judaism by spreading this Jewish heresy to the gentiles? Paul was a hellenistic Jew who grew up and was taught outside of Jerusalem. How do you know that Paul did not just invent all this stuff to get a job or was not hired by the Jews to push these Christian ideas to the gentiles?

The truth is that outside of Catholic tradition you have no way of knowing who wrote the NT.

REPLY: Scripture contains the evidence of its own reliability, and we have many fragments of the New testament books dating from 50 AD to early 2nd century. There were many false writings, and the onus is on the reader to discern true from false. An important test of truth is evidence of gnostic and judaizing elements in the false writings; also, the consistency with the messianic prophecies of the Hebrew scriptures. One can still pick up the texts claiming to be of God and make a determination of true and false.

But what about 99% of the people who could not read or write. Do you really think God would send these all to hell for failure to find the missing fragments of scripture and not be able to read it? Now let’s go the other way - what DEFINES Gnosticism? Who gets to be the one who sees a writing (and can actually read or write) and says “aha - that a gnostic influence right there in THAT sentence?”.

You are reaching for straws to prove a theory that has no credible basis nor has any standard for discerning scripture from gnostic influence. Your theory requires the double delimma of being able to accurately define true scripture and being able to accurately define what is gnostic vs. what is some other heresy. This is untennable and leaves no recognized authority to ratify anything any one person believes or opines.

[continued]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

[continued from above]

REPLY: John in writing to all Christian said the following in 1 John 4:1-6
“Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.”
2 Peter 1:15
2 Peter 2:1

But none of the early Christians could fling scripture verses around back and forth like you get to. What if a person only heard John’s message but not Peter’s or vice versa. Sines they did not hear THE WHOLE word of God how can anyone be saved? And what about the many who scripture tells us “were casting our demons in Christ name” but were not part of the Church or following the disciples? And didn’t Jesus also say that no all who profess Him Lord Lord will enter my kingdom? How does this reconcile with John’s statement about testing spirits? What if a gnostic was in this group professing Lord Lord - would they meet the test of Christian given by John? Did the apostles test the spirit at Pentecost and shy away from the tongues of fire first saying “Before you set me on fire with love from on high first profess aloud Jesus is Lord or go away from me!”.

Please get real…

REPLY: The ECF’s is a term coined by people who looked to certain early writers who wrote on Christian topics. I would not agree that all were Christians; some espoused destructive heresies. But these early professed Christian writings can be used as evidence of the recognition and use of sacred scripture. The scripture contains no gnosticism whereas the ECF’s were products of Roman society and in several cases former gnostics themselves.

Why was Marcion not considered an ECF or Arian or Montanus or Valentinus? Were these Christians or heretic? How do you know? So you put no faith in the Catholic Councils that declared these men heretics? Do you really think you could have picked these men out of the many others who were all talking about some aspect of Christ - but not in the sense of what Catholics developed orthodox Christianity from? Uh huh…

REPLY: Again, Protestants are not the true church nor the Catholic, due to too much gnosticism. If any ECF is saved it is because they obeyed the true gospel and remained faithful until death. The true gospel was known by what they had, and evidence indicates they had most if not all, perhaps more, of what we have, but still many were not diligent enough to distinguish truth from error.

Because YOU say this is true we are all to believe you? Are you making a claim of infallability? Where is scripture does it tell us “this is all ‘true gospel’ and if you remain faithful till death you will be saved”?

It sounds to me like you are injecting your own dogmatic ideas into scripture and since you are not an ECF not teaching orthodox Christianity I should not listen to one more word of what you say since its pure heresy. You have set youself up as judge and jury for what is both orthodox Christianity as well as what is orthodox gnosticism. But you have not passed your own critera of showing miracalous signs and wonders much less made any sense at all of this subject matter.

This is just another opinionated conspiracy theory among millions that lacks objective evidence, which is self contradictory and tries to stand on its own infallable opinion without the slightest evidence of pedigree.

My advice - don’t go pay any publishing house to try to print your theory in a book and sell it for profit since I doubt you will get more than 1,000 willing to pay more than $5 bucks for it from the tinfoil hat and anti-Catholic crowd. Dan Browne has already done the gnostic fiction story in his Angels & Demons and DaVinci Code books that made him 10’s of millions of dollars and picked the pockets of this market segment (in a declining economy) . His story while easily refuted was at least entertaining as fiction. Yours just falls on its face at the getgo…

:yawn:

Unsubscribing from another useless thread…

James

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

What about gnostic influences in Islam? I willing to wager they got a few.

Perhaps Sufism in Islam.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

James, if you seriously want to engage in discussion, I suggest that you:

1. number your points for easy reply
2. avoid inventing things I say so you can oppose your own inventions