PDA

View Full Version : John 2:22



RZ06
Oct 22nd 2008, 03:00 AM
(1 John 2:22)

Powerful...

To get an understanding of who Jesus is, I am reading the book of John's and I just found this verse powerful. I never thought of a non-believer as the antichrist.

And who is a liar? Anyone who says that Jesus is not the Christ. Anyone who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist.

I can just imagine the chaos it would cause to tell someone who states they don't believe in Christ, that they're an antichrist :eek: :P

Emanate
Oct 22nd 2008, 03:18 AM
(1 John 2:22)

Powerful...

To get an understanding of who Jesus is, I am reading the book of John's and I just found this verse powerful. I never thought of a non-believer as the antichrist.

And who is a liar? Anyone who says that Jesus is not the Christ. Anyone who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist.

I can just imagine the chaos it would cause to tell someone who states they don't believe in Christ, that they're an antichrist :eek: :P


I find it hard to believe that they would care.

RZ06
Oct 22nd 2008, 03:23 AM
I find it hard to believe that they would care.

What about a Jew? Or any other religion that doesn't believe Christ is their savior, but they do believe in God? I think they would be greatly insulted by being called an antichrist. I know that means they then probably don't believe in the New Testament, but for someone who believes in God, I still think regardless of them not honoring the NT, they'd still be offended.

Emanate
Oct 22nd 2008, 03:24 AM
What about a Jew? Or any other religion that doesn't believe Christ is their savior, but they do believe in God? I think they would be greatly insulted by being called an antichrist.


No, they would most likely laugh and shrug it off.

unkerns
Oct 22nd 2008, 03:40 AM
a gentle answer turns away wrath

crossnote
Oct 22nd 2008, 04:42 AM
What about a Jew? Or any other religion that doesn't believe Christ is their savior, but they do believe in God? I think they would be greatly insulted by being called an antichrist. I know that means they then probably don't believe in the New Testament, but for someone who believes in God, I still think regardless of them not honoring the NT, they'd still be offended.

Yes they probably would be insulted and offended. After all the Gospel is an offense and stumblingblock. Both Jews and Muslims have and sometimes still do show disdain to the 'trinity God'.
But the solid fact is that our God has three Persons whereas they have a different God who deny the Son.

Emanate
Oct 22nd 2008, 11:41 AM
Yes they probably would be insulted and offended. After all the Gospel is an offense and stumblingblock. Both Jews and Muslims have and sometimes still do show disdain to the 'trinity God'.
But the solid fact is that our God has three Persons whereas they have a different God who deny the Son.


You believe that Jews have a different God?

David Taylor
Oct 22nd 2008, 12:40 PM
What about a Jew? Or any other religion that doesn't believe Christ is their savior, but they do believe in God?

You believe that Jews have a different God?
How would Jesus have answered these questions using John 8:33-47

Particularly the closing Verses 42 and 47?

Also II John 1:9?

I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then they said to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

kbm0329
Oct 22nd 2008, 12:58 PM
I think that is a great post David.

It is very interesting to note that the verse 1 John 2:22 stipulates the Father and the Son. I don't think John really cared really whether it would offend someone or not. I find when it comes to religious matters, someone probably will always be "offended" when they hear something that goes against what they believe.

Emanate
Oct 22nd 2008, 01:01 PM
How would Jesus have answered these questions using John 8:33-47

Particularly the closing Verses 42 and 47?

Also II John 1:9?

I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then they said to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.



So this was not a rebuke to show them that there doctrine was in error, but it was comparing them to other gentile/heathen nations?

David Taylor
Oct 22nd 2008, 02:24 PM
So this was not a rebuke to show them that there doctrine was in error, but it was comparing them to other gentile/heathen nations?

No, it was talking about them not 'having God' even though they claimed to and about their claims to follow God being false and untrue; since they reject Christ who the Father sent.

It had nothing to do with doctrine persay; but rather, they specific rejection of Christ...and whomever does so, is not of God, neither do they have God....regardless of their claim or religion.

When John said, 'doctrine of Christ' he could have just as easily said, 'belief in Christ', or 'following the teachings of Christ'...don't let the word 'doctrine' cause you to miss the entire intent of those two passages.

Summary: Anyone who rejects Christ, "hath not God" and "is not of God".

Another good verse-set from I John tells us about anyone who denies Christ:

"He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father

He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son."
"

BroRog
Oct 22nd 2008, 02:42 PM
(1 John 2:22)

Powerful...

To get an understanding of who Jesus is, I am reading the book of John's and I just found this verse powerful. I never thought of a non-believer as the antichrist.

And who is a liar? Anyone who says that Jesus is not the Christ. Anyone who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist.

I can just imagine the chaos it would cause to tell someone who states they don't believe in Christ, that they're an antichrist :eek: :P

This verse is NOT talking about people who don't believe in Christ. John is talking about people who believe in God, and believe that the Messiah is going to come. Nonetheless, these same people don't believe Jesus is the Messiah. They don't deny God. They don't deny that a Messiah will come. What they deny is that Jesus is him.

These were people who studied their Bible in anticipation of the coming Messiah. They poured through the scriptures looking for clues to his identity. What will the Messiah do? How will he act? What can we exect from him when he arrives?

Jesus did not fit their picture. They looked at him and said, "Nah, he's not the one." He got himself killed. He was an embarrassment to God and his people. He wasn't the Messiah.

John points out that if we deny that Jesus is the Messiah, to deny the son is to also deny the father. Jesus' ministry was attended by so many miracles, so many acts of kindness, so many acts of righteousness, to deny that Jesus was the Messiah is to deny the obvious.

Your unbelieving friends can't be antiChrist since they haven't got a clue what that even means. The one who has no excuse is the one who should know better.

RZ06
Oct 22nd 2008, 03:49 PM
This verse is NOT talking about people who don't believe in Christ. John is talking about people who believe in God, and believe that the Messiah is going to come. Nonetheless, these same people don't believe Jesus is the Messiah. They don't deny God. They don't deny that a Messiah will come. What they deny is that Jesus is him.

These were people who studied their Bible in anticipation of the coming Messiah. They poured through the scriptures looking for clues to his identity. What will the Messiah do? How will he act? What can we exect from him when he arrives?

Jesus did not fit their picture. They looked at him and said, "Nah, he's not the one." He got himself killed. He was an embarrassment to God and his people. He wasn't the Messiah.

John points out that if we deny that Jesus is the Messiah, to deny the son is to also deny the father. Jesus' ministry was attended by so many miracles, so many acts of kindness, so many acts of righteousness, to deny that Jesus was the Messiah is to deny the obvious.

Your unbelieving friends can't be antiChrist since they haven't got a clue what that even means. The one who has no excuse is the one who should know better.

Enlightening...Thank you.

So, what I gathered from reading that is only a Jew would be considered the antichrist since he knows Christ but denies Christ as the Messiah?

Also, where did you get that interpretation from? Is it explained in the books of John and I just haven't read it yet or elsewhere in the Bible and it refers back to what John wrote?

Chimon
Oct 23rd 2008, 02:44 AM
(1 John 2:22)

Powerful...

To get an understanding of who Jesus is, I am reading the book of John's and I just found this verse powerful. I never thought of a non-believer as the antichrist.

And who is a liar? Anyone who says that Jesus is not the Christ. Anyone who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist.

I can just imagine the chaos it would cause to tell someone who states they don't believe in Christ, that they're an antichrist :eek: :P


In context, John is talking about dealing with teachers and how to know if they are from God or false teachers. I don't think it's appropriate to take this verse and use it to say that all nonchristians are antichrists, because under the lens of the whole canon, that's not Biblical.

crossnote
Oct 24th 2008, 05:51 AM
You believe that Jews have a different God?

Jews who reject their Messiah (Jesus) are rejecting the God of Scripture.

Now I will say they have God's Word in the first Testament whereas Muslims have twisted it out of shape.

The Christian God is a trinity whereas unbelieving Jews reject that revelation of God and thus reject God himself.

Lastly, God has not yet fully rejected His covenant people the Jews but will deal with many (through tribulation) in bringing them to Him.

David Taylor
Oct 24th 2008, 02:30 PM
And who is a liar? Anyone who says that Jesus is not the Christ. Anyone who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist. In context, John is talking about dealing with teachers and how to know if they are from God or false teachers. I don't think it's appropriate to take this verse and use it to say that all nonchristians are antichrists

Then why would John use the specific phrase

'anyone who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist'

instead of saying as you suggest,

'false teachers who deny the Father and the Son are antichrist''

Sounds to me like for whatever reason, you're wanting to change the clear presentation of specific scripture here.

'Anyone' gives us the answer from the scriptures, that it includes all nonChristians.

Jesus said,
"He that is not with me is against me" Mark 12:30

"But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 10:33

"Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God." Luke 12:9

"The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder" Luke 20:17

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. " John 3:36

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." John 12:48.

Scripture remains very clear; anyone, whosoever, that is not with Christ; rejects, denies, doesn't believe; applies to all not just a select subset.

Foghorn
Oct 26th 2008, 04:31 AM
RZ06 wrote:
(1 John 2:22)

Powerful...

To get an understanding of who Jesus is, I am reading the book of John's and I just found this verse powerful. I never thought of a non-believer as the antichrist.

And who is a liar? Anyone who says that Jesus is not the Christ. Anyone who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist.

I can just imagine the chaos it would cause to tell someone who states they don't believe in Christ, that they're an antichrist.....................................



The antichrist will seat himself in the place of God. As to the thinking he will say he is the antichrist? If anyone is looking for a confession they will never find him.
The word "antichriat" pertains to someone who is against Christ but who nevertheless creates the impression as if he were for Christ.

Think about this, the antichrist has been in the world for quite some time, read 1 John.
Question, what is the antchrist system and who is he?

σяєяυииєя
Oct 26th 2008, 08:19 AM
Think about this, the antichrist has been in the world for quite some time, read 1 John.
Question, what is the antchrist system and who is he?

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 1 John 4:2,3.

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. Matthew 12:30


Go well

Foghorn
Oct 26th 2008, 05:42 PM
Then why would John use the specific phrase

'anyone who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist'

instead of saying as you suggest,

'false teachers who deny the Father and the Son are antichrist''

Sounds to me like for whatever reason, you're wanting to change the clear presentation of specific scripture here.

'Anyone' gives us the answer from the scriptures, that it includes all nonChristians.

Jesus said,
"He that is not with me is against me" Mark 12:30

"But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 10:33

"Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God." Luke 12:9

"The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder" Luke 20:17

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. " John 3:36

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." John 12:48.

Scripture remains very clear; anyone, whosoever, that is not with Christ; rejects, denies, doesn't believe; applies to all not just a select subset.Notice in 1 John, the antichrist is used singularly and plural, back and forth. I believe the antichrist system along with its leader is in the world today, been here for centuries.
Scripture says: He who has wisdom, let him calculate the number of his name. I am pretty convinced I know who he is, not just I but many people do. It is right under our noses, people throughout the centuries know his system and leaders.
I'll give a hint:
Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp who himself was a disciple of John arrived at a conclusion.

Note, John wrote in the Greek language, and the Greek language uses its letters also as numbers, the letters of this number would convey the name of a man. ........We also read of ..."the mark of his name, Rev 14:11. ...and, "the number of his name, Rev 15:3. His name would be written with such letters which together would constitute the number six hundred sixty-six.

SIG
Oct 26th 2008, 11:44 PM
"He that is not with me is against me" Mark 12:30

Anyone who is not unequivocally for Christ is, in effect, against Him. There is no middle ground. In that sense, anyone who is not one of His sheep is anti-Christ. That spirit has been around since the serpent in the Garden.

This is not to be confused with THE antichrist, whoever or whatever that may be. Time will tell.

Foghorn
Oct 27th 2008, 12:40 AM
"He that is not with me is against me" Mark 12:30

Anyone who is not unequivocally for Christ is, in effect, against Him. There is no middle ground. In that sense, anyone who is not one of His sheep is anti-Christ. That spirit has been around since the serpent in the Garden.

This is not to be confused with THE antichrist, whoever or whatever that may be. Time will tell.I agree. But when it comes to the mark of the beast six hundred and sixty six, it now becomes personal, does it not?

Foghorn
Oct 27th 2008, 12:41 AM
"He that is not with me is against me" Mark 12:30

Anyone who is not unequivocally for Christ is, in effect, against Him. There is no middle ground. In that sense, anyone who is not one of His sheep is anti-Christ. That spirit has been around since the serpent in the Garden.

This is not to be confused with THE antichrist, whoever or whatever that may be. Time will tell.
Besides, the study to reveal who the antichrist is is interesting, you may not agree, but it is challenging and interesting.

Butch5
Oct 27th 2008, 12:54 AM
(1 John 2:22)

Powerful...

To get an understanding of who Jesus is, I am reading the book of John's and I just found this verse powerful. I never thought of a non-believer as the antichrist.

And who is a liar? Anyone who says that Jesus is not the Christ. Anyone who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist.

I can just imagine the chaos it would cause to tell someone who states they don't believe in Christ, that they're an antichrist :eek: :P


Hi RZ,

John is writing these book in response to the Gnostics. The Gnostics were a group that believed that Christ was a Spirit and Jesus was a man. They believed that the flesh was corrupt and therefore salvation could not come by way of the flesh. They believed that the God of the OT was inferior to the God of the NT. They believed that the physical world was inherently evil. They believed that the God of the NT was the true God and the father of Jesus. They believed that the Christ came down from heaven and indwelt the man Jesus, they said when Jesus went to the cross the Christ left his body, so the Christ was never crucified only the man Jesus was. Since they said the flesh is corrupt salvation could not come through the flesh, therefore they denied that Jesus resurrected. Hence John's statement, anyone who denies that Christ came in the flesh is Antichrist.

There is a lot more that they believed but this should give you a basic understanding. It is in this context that the books of John should be read.
You can search the net to get some info on the Gnostics.

Foghorn
Oct 27th 2008, 01:05 AM
Hi RZ,

John is writing these book in response to the Gnostics. The Gnostics were a group that believed that Christ was a Spirit and Jesus was a man. They believed that the flesh was corrupt and therefore salvation could not come by way of the flesh. They believed that the God of the OT was inferior to the God of the NT. They believed that the physical world was inherently evil. They believed that the God of the NT was the true God and the father of Jesus. They believed that the Christ came down from heaven and indwelt the man Jesus, they said when Jesus went to the cross the Christ left his body, so the Christ was never crucified only the man Jesus was. Since they said the flesh is corrupt salvation could not come through the flesh, therefore they denied that Jesus resurrected. Hence John's statement, anyone who denies that Christ came in the flesh is Antichrist.

There is a lot more that they believed but this should give you a basic understanding. It is in this context that the books of John should be read.
You can search the net to get some info on the Gnostics. Nice wording, good point. :)

IamBill
Oct 27th 2008, 01:09 AM
Hi RZ,

John is writing these book in response to the Gnostics.
.......
Hence John's statement, anyone who denies that Christ came in the flesh is Antichrist.

There is a lot more that they believed but this should give you a basic understanding. It is in this context that the books of John should be read.
You can search the net to get some info on the Gnostics.

Hi Butch5,
I have never heard any of this before ?
Where does this info come from ?

Foghorn
Oct 27th 2008, 01:44 AM
Hi RZ,

John is writing these book in response to the Gnostics. The Gnostics were a group that believed that Christ was a Spirit and Jesus was a man. They believed that the flesh was corrupt and therefore salvation could not come by way of the flesh. They believed that the God of the OT was inferior to the God of the NT. They believed that the physical world was inherently evil. They believed that the God of the NT was the true God and the father of Jesus. They believed that the Christ came down from heaven and indwelt the man Jesus, they said when Jesus went to the cross the Christ left his body, so the Christ was never crucified only the man Jesus was. Since they said the flesh is corrupt salvation could not come through the flesh, therefore they denied that Jesus resurrected. Hence John's statement, anyone who denies that Christ came in the flesh is Antichrist.

There is a lot more that they believed but this should give you a basic understanding. It is in this context that the books of John should be read.
You can search the net to get some info on the Gnostics.If I may add one thing?
the gnostics believed flesh was evil, therefore God wouldn't possess a human body, therefore they taught Jesus's body was a phantom, not flesh. This is also why john wrote in 1 John 1:1 "what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of Life"

brakelite
Oct 27th 2008, 02:45 AM
It is important to understand the meaning of the expression "antichrist". The antichrist will not appear as an open adversary of the church, or of Jesus. What he does is he seats himself in the temple of God, the church, and claims to be as God. He puts himself forward as an intermediary in the place of the true mediator, Christ. 'Anti' in this context means 'in place of'. Vicar from the Latin vicarious is a synonym for the Greek 'anti'. The antichrist opposes Christ by way of replacing Him in the thoughts and mind of His followers. The antichrist becomes the means of salvation, he becomes the forgiver of sins, he becomes the mediator between God and man. In all this he has opposed and replaced Christ in the church, and has taken over the prerogatives that belong only to God.
That 'spirit' of antichrist was indeed present in Johns day and found it's full realisation in the apostate Roman Catholic church in the ministry of the popes and priests.

Butch5
Oct 27th 2008, 02:55 AM
If I may add one thing?
the gnostics believed flesh was evil, therefore God wouldn't possess a human body, therefore they taught Jesus's body was a phantom, not flesh. This is also why john wrote in 1 John 1:1 "what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of Life"

Their beliefs were considerable, especially when you get into the different sects. That is why I tried to keep it simple. When I listened to book 1 of Ireanaeus' Against Heresies , I was think wow. I don't know how they remembered all of those gods.

Foghorn
Oct 27th 2008, 02:57 AM
It is important to understand the meaning of the expression "antichrist". The antichrist will not appear as an open adversary of the church, or of Jesus. What he does is he seats himself in the temple of God, the church, and claims to be as God. He puts himself forward as an intermediary in the place of the true mediator, Christ. 'Anti' in this context means 'in place of'. Vicar from the Latin vicarious is a synonym for the Greek 'anti'. The antichrist opposes Christ by way of replacing Him in the thoughts and mind of His followers. The antichrist becomes the means of salvation, he becomes the forgiver of sins, he becomes the mediator between God and man. In all this he has opposed and replaced Christ in the church, and has taken over the prerogatives that belong only to God.
That 'spirit' of antichrist was indeed present in Johns day and found it's full realisation in the apostate Roman Catholic church in the ministry of the popes and priests.
Awesome, do you believe this?

Foghorn
Oct 27th 2008, 02:59 AM
Their beliefs were considerable, especially when you get into the different sects. That is why I tried to keep it simple. When I listened to book 1 of Ireanaeus' Against Heresies , I was think wow. I don't know how they remembered all of those gods.Yes, I agree. Gnosticism truly was a very serious enemy of the early church.

BroRog
Oct 27th 2008, 03:06 AM
The writings of John are pre-gnostic. He is actually writing about the Pharisees.

Marc B
Oct 27th 2008, 03:15 AM
Yes they probably would be insulted and offended. After all the Gospel is an offense and stumblingblock. Both Jews and Muslims have and sometimes still do show disdain to the 'trinity God'.
But the solid fact is that our God has three Persons whereas they have a different God who deny the Son.

Not all Christians believe in the trinity either. They believe in the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit as a manifestation of the power of God, not a person. Since this is a taboo subject on this board it's best not to talk about it. :no:

Butch5
Oct 27th 2008, 03:16 AM
Hi Butch5,
I have never heard any of this before ?
Where does this info come from ?

Hi Bill,

If you look at the early church you can find a lot of information on the Gnostics, The apostles were constantly battling these different groups. Paul dealt a lot with the Judaizers which were Jews that claimed a person needed to be circumcised in addition to having faith. This is why so much of Paul's writings speak of salvation by faith and not by works. He was writing against these Judaizer who were telling the Christians that they needed to be circumcised.
Paul dealt also with the Gnostics and it is quite probable that He was writing against them in 1 Corinthians, when He speaks of those being baptized for the dead. Paul says, for if the dead rise not. Theses Gnostics claim that the dead didn't rise. John also dealt with them and 1 John is one of the books in which He does.

[/URL]

Irenaeus wrote extensively against the Gnostics, you can read His work "Against Heresies". It is a 5 book work, Irenaeus wrote around the year 180 ad. You can also find this work in the Ante-Nicene Fathers. The Ante-Nicene Father's is a 10 volume collection and there are other writers that speak of these Gnostics. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. Here is a link to a site where you can read the Ante-Nicene Fathers on line. Irenaeus is in volume one. It is not light reading.

[URL]http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html (http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html)

Foghorn
Oct 27th 2008, 03:19 AM
Hi Bill,

If you look at the early church you can find a lot of information on the Gnostics, The apostles were constantly battling these different groups. Paul dealt a lot with the Judaizers which were Jews that claimed a person needed to be circumcised in addition to having faith. This is why so much of Paul's writings speak of salvation by faith and not by works. He was writing against these Judaizer who were telling the Christians that they needed to be circumcised.
Paul did deal also with the Gnostics and it is quite probable that He was writing against them in 1 Corinthians, when He speaks of those being baptized for the dead. Paul says, for if the dead rise not. Theses Gnostics claim that the dead didn't rise. John also dealt with them and 1 John is one of the books in which He does.

Irenaeus wrote extensively against the Gnostics, you can read His work "Against Heresies". It is a 5 book work, Irenaeus wrote around the year 180 ad. You can also find this work in the Ante-Nicene Fathers. The Ante-Nicene Father's is a 10 volume collection and there are other writers that speak of these Gnostics. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of hte apostle John. Here is a link to a site where you can read the Ante-Nicene Fathers on line. Irenaeus is in volume one. It is not light reading.I agree with you here Butch, it is recorded for everyone to read.

Marc B
Oct 27th 2008, 03:37 AM
It is important to understand the meaning of the expression "antichrist". The antichrist will not appear as an open adversary of the church, or of Jesus. What he does is he seats himself in the temple of God, the church, and claims to be as God. He puts himself forward as an intermediary in the place of the true mediator, Christ. 'Anti' in this context means 'in place of'. Vicar from the Latin vicarious is a synonym for the Greek 'anti'. The antichrist opposes Christ by way of replacing Him in the thoughts and mind of His followers. The antichrist becomes the means of salvation, he becomes the forgiver of sins, he becomes the mediator between God and man. In all this he has opposed and replaced Christ in the church, and has taken over the prerogatives that belong only to God.
That 'spirit' of antichrist was indeed present in Johns day and found it's full realisation in the apostate Roman Catholic church in the ministry of the popes and priests.

Exactly, the end time antichrist will be a counterfeit jesus passing himself off as the real thing. How else could he deceive millions of faithful believers in the great falling away when he aligns himself with the beast power? Eventually forcing allegiance to the beast or face a death penalty culminating in the final persecution of the saints who refuse to follow this fake christ.

IamBill
Oct 27th 2008, 03:39 AM
Well, Foghorn, honestly im not so sure this "Irenaeus" is all that well known ...certainly not important enough to be included in the Bible !

Butch
Ok, It did sound as though you meant John wrote exclusively "to" and "about" Gnostics.
Interesting though, I'll give it a read when I have time ...thanks

BroRog
Oct 27th 2008, 05:35 AM
Hi Bill,

If you look at the early church you can find a lot of information on the Gnostics, The apostles were constantly battling these different groups. Paul dealt a lot with the Judaizers which were Jews that claimed a person needed to be circumcised in addition to having faith. This is why so much of Paul's writings speak of salvation by faith and not by works. He was writing against these Judaizer who were telling the Christians that they needed to be circumcised.
Paul dealt also with the Gnostics and it is quite probable that He was writing against them in 1 Corinthians, when He speaks of those being baptized for the dead. Paul says, for if the dead rise not. Theses Gnostics claim that the dead didn't rise. John also dealt with them and 1 John is one of the books in which He does.



Irenaeus wrote extensively against the Gnostics, you can read His work "Against Heresies". It is a 5 book work, Irenaeus wrote around the year 180 ad. You can also find this work in the Ante-Nicene Fathers. The Ante-Nicene Father's is a 10 volume collection and there are other writers that speak of these Gnostics. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. Here is a link to a site where you can read the Ante-Nicene Fathers on line. Irenaeus is in volume one. It is not light reading.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html

Notice that Irenaeus wrote a good 100 years after John. Gnosticism was Irenaeus' problem, not John's. And by the way, we are all students of John.

mikeelikesthebible
Oct 27th 2008, 06:57 AM
I believe it is lost in translation. Note even in the version you are using, it says "a" antichrist, not "the" antichrist.

Just as it says that anyone who gives a cup of water in my name is on our side, those that deny him, are not on his side. That is all that is meant by the verse, I am certain.

Butch5
Oct 27th 2008, 07:38 PM
Notice that Irenaeus wrote a good 100 years after John. Gnosticism was Irenaeus' problem, not John's. And by the way, we are all students of John.

John and Paul both dealt with the Gnostics, just look at church history. Irenaeuswas the one who wrote specifically aobut their beliefs.

You study under John???

Butch5
Oct 27th 2008, 07:39 PM
Well, Foghorn, honestly im not so sure this "Irenaeus" is all that well known ...certainly not important enough to be included in the Bible !

Butch
Ok, It did sound as though you meant John wrote exclusively "to" and "about" Gnostics.
Interesting though, I'll give it a read when I have time ...thanks

He is not in the Bible because He live after the time.

John in His epistles deals with these false teachers.

Butch5
Oct 27th 2008, 07:41 PM
The writings of John are pre-gnostic. He is actually writing about the Pharisees.


Where is there teaching that the Pharasees denied that Christ came in the flesh?

Foghorn
Oct 27th 2008, 10:00 PM
Where is there teaching that the Pharasees denied that Christ came in the flesh?
Good point Butch, you have a keen eye and a sharp pencile lol. Matter of fact they were expecting him in the flesh as a political leader.

MercyChild
Oct 27th 2008, 10:09 PM
I just need to know, I believe in Gods existance, but is not sure whether I am a christian, does that make me the antichrist as well?:hmm:

BroRog
Oct 28th 2008, 11:17 PM
John and Paul both dealt with the Gnostics, just look at church history. Irenaeuswas the one who wrote specifically aobut their beliefs.

You study under John???

Hey Butch, no need to get snippy. :) First of all, Irenaeus wrote against Gnosticism around 180AD give or take. This places both Gnosticism and Ireneaus 100 years beyond the oldest living Apostle. Therefore, Irenaeus could not have studied under John; and John could not have responded to Gnostic thought.

Secondly, lest we elevate a man above his proper state, let us rememeber that we have John's letters and his gospel. Irenaeus is not any different than you or I.

Butch5
Oct 29th 2008, 04:15 AM
Hey Butch, no need to get snippy. :) First of all, Irenaeus wrote against Gnosticism around 180AD give or take. This places both Gnosticism and Ireneaus 100 years beyond the oldest living Apostle. Therefore, Irenaeus could not have studied under John; and John could not have responded to Gnostic thought.

Secondly, lest we elevate a man above his proper state, let us rememeber that we have John's letters and his gospel. Irenaeus is not any different than you or I.

Hi BroRog,


I was not getting snippy, I think because was have John's gospel and his letters, that is not the same as studying under Him.

Irenaeus wrote approximately 80 years after John. One John's students was a man named Polycarp, who was bishop at the church in Smyrna. He was a highly respected christian leader in the early church. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. So, Irenaeus had only one person between himself and the apostle John.

Do you think Gnosticism was only around for a year or two? Gnosticism began during the time the apostles were starting the churches and it continued past the time of Irenaeus. Do a study of the false teaching in the time of John and see who believed that Christ did not come in the flesh.


BroRog---Secondly, lest we elevate a man above his proper state, let us rememeber that we have John's letters and his gospel. Irenaeus is not any different than you or I


No, Irenaeus is no different than you and I, however, do you speak Koine Greek? Irenaeus did. Do you understand what was going on in the first century in that region? Irenaeus did. Do you understand that culture? Irenaeus did. I'm not being sarcastic, however people are quick to dismiss the early church, these guys lived at the same time (relatively), they spoke the same language, the understood what was going on at the time, they understood the culture. We don't have any of that, we try to understand the what John is saying without any understanding of the the issue is that He is dealing with. If we don't understand what was happening at the time we can't understand what is being spoken of. It would be like me writing instructions to my family telling them to do certain things, then you reading the instructions and trying to understand why I said what I said.

Butch5
Oct 29th 2008, 04:17 AM
I just need to know, I believe in Gods existance, but is not sure whether I am a christian, does that make me the antichrist as well?:hmm:

John is not talking about people not believing, He is speaking of a specific group of people.

BroRog
Oct 29th 2008, 02:46 PM
Hi BroRog,


I was not getting snippy, I think because was have John's gospel and his letters, that is not the same as studying under Him.

Of course, having the letters isn't the same as studying them. But remember, Irenaeus also had the same letters we have.


Irenaeus wrote approximately 80 years after John. One John's students was a man named Polycarp, who was bishop at the church in Smyrna. He was a highly respected christian leader in the early church. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. So, Irenaeus had only one person between himself and the apostle John.

This means nothing to me. Again, Polycarp might have been a student of John's and sat under his teaching, but this doesn't mean he was a good student.


Do you think Gnosticism was only around for a year or two?

The question is whether it was around during John's time, which it wasn't.


Gnosticism began during the time the apostles were starting the churches and it continued past the time of Irenaeus.


I think if you re-check your history, you will find that Gnosticism was not around then.



No, Irenaeus is no different than you and I, however, do you speak Koine Greek? Irenaeus did.


All of the letters of the Apostles deal with mistakes and false teachings found in the church. And each of those who made these mistakes and taught these false teachings understood Greek.

I personally think you are giving these men too much credit. It's an insult to call them "fathers."

Butch5
Oct 30th 2008, 01:21 AM
BroRog---Of course, having the letters isn't the same as studying them. But remember, Irenaeus also had the same letters we have.

Yes and Irenaeus also had Polycarp who personally knew John.




BroRog---This means nothing to me. Again, Polycarp might have been a student of John's and sat under his teaching, but this doesn't mean he was a good student.

Come on BroRog, all you have to do is a brief study of Polycarp and you will find out what kind of student he was. I wouldn't be quite so quick to dismiss an eye witness.




BroRog---The question is whether it was around during John's time, which it wasn't.

History of the Christian Church

The Gnostic Heresy The Pastoral Epistles, like Colossians, oppose the Gnostic heresy (γνῶσις ψευδώνυμος, 1 Tim 6:20) which arose in Asia Minor during his first Roman captivity, and appears more fully developed in Cerinthus, the contemporary of John. This was acknowledged by the early Fathers, Irenaeus and Tertullian, who used these very Epistles as Pauline testimonies against the Gnosticism of their day.

Cerinthus was a Jewish Christian from Egypt and the Gnostic arch-heretic that St. John (http://bibleforums.org/earlychurch/john.htm) opposed

http://latter-rain.com/church/cerin.htm

A Gnostic-Ebionite (http://bibleforums.org/cathen/05242c.htm) heretic (http://bibleforums.org/cathen/07256b.htm), contemporary with St. John (http://bibleforums.org/cathen/08492a.htm);


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03539a.htm

CERINTHUS (c. A.D. loo), an early Christian heretic, contemporary with the closing years of the apostle John (http://bibleforums.org/The_Apostle_John),

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Cerinthus


Christian heretic whose errors, according to the theologian Irenaeus (http://bibleforums.org/EBchecked/topic/293911/Saint-Irenaeus), led the apostle John to write his New Testament Gospel (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/103530/Cerinthus/l)
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/103530/Cerinthus#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=Cerinthus%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia
.


John writes near the end of the first century to define and defend the nature of the person of Christ against heretical teachings affecting the early church. The name given to the heresy which John addressed was Gnosticism from the Greek word for 'knowledge'.

http://www.abu.nb.ca/ecm/John10b.htm

Early Christian tradition describes Cerinthus as a contemporary to and opponent of John the Evangelist (http://bibleforums.org/wiki/John_the_Evangelist),

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerinthus


What do you suppose Paul was talking about here? Paul went to a lot of trouble to reassure the Corinthians that Christ rose from the dead.

The Holy Bible, King James Version

1 Corinthians 15:1-19 ( KJV ) 1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.



12Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.




It was the Gnostics who claimed that Christ did not rise.




BroRog---All of the letters of the Apostles deal with mistakes and false teachings found in the church. And each of those who made these mistakes and taught these false teachings understood Greek.

What mistakes? Why do you assume the false teachings were mistakes?


BroRog---I personally think you are giving these men too much credit. It's an insult to call them "fathers."

Well, if you studied them you probably wouldn't feel that way. The Ante-Nicene Fathers are a valuable resource.

BroRog
Oct 30th 2008, 05:24 AM
Yes and Irenaeus also had Polycarp who personally knew John. You're not listening. Irenaeus and Polycarp are no different than you or I. We all have the words of John and can know what Jesus intended for us to learn. John even says as much in his first epistle. "You have the annointed one and you all know." I don't need either one of these men. I have the Apostle himself.
Come on BroRog, all you have to do is a brief study of Polycarp and you will find out what kind of student he was. I wouldn't be quite so quick to dismiss an eye witness. As I said before, the epistles of Paul, Peter, James, and John were written to eye witnesses who simply got it wrong and needed correction. This fact alone should be enough to dissuade you from putting any stock in their writings. If you have the time and enjoy reading these men, then enjoy yourself. But don't cite them as authoritative. They aren't Apostles; they didn't witness Jesus or hear his teaching directly. By the way, you need to check your sources.
What do you suppose Paul was talking about here? Paul went to a lot of trouble to reassure the Corinthians that Christ rose from the dead. And?

It was the Gnostics who claimed that Christ did not rise.
Some so-called Gnostics claimed that Jesus, the man didn't rise. They did say that "the Christ" rose. And these Gnostics didn't claim that Jesus never came in the flesh. They claimed that Jesus was a man, and that "Christ" entered him at his baptism and left him at his crucifixion. John's warning about the antichrists who say that Jesus didn't come in the flesh, doesn't speak to Gnostic thought, since the Gnostics would have agreed with John that Jesus came in the flesh. To put it another way, if we posit that Jesus was 100% man and 100% God, the Gnostics believed that Jesus was only 100% man, not God; while John was warning us about folks who believed that the messiah would be 100% God and not a man. The two issues are completely different. To say that Jesus didn't come in the flesh is to say that Jesus was not flesh and blood but a spirit only. By contrast, Gnostic doctrine taught that the pnumatikoi, were good spirits trapped in evil flesh, and that knowing this fact was the beginning of a journey back to the good spirit world.
What mistakes? Why do you assume the false teachings were mistakes? I didn't say the false teachings were mistakes. But don't miss the point. Those who promote the ECF's base their commendation, as you have, on the fact that these men sat under the Apostle John, which supposedly gives them credibility. But the very fact that Paul needed to send letters of correction to people who sat under his teaching clearly demonstrates the error of such an assumption. For this reason, I am not in the least bit interested in what they have to say. And since none of these men have any kind of belief authority, I can't accept their words as authoritative.
Well, if you studied them you probably wouldn't feel that way. The Ante-Nicene Fathers are a valuable resource. They might have value as historical sources, giving us an idea of their practices and beliefs, but I can't say these practices or beliefs have any bearing on what ought to be done. But this brings us back to the issue at hand. Gnosticism was Irenaeus' problem, not John's. Contrary to your source, Cerinthus was not a Gnostic. Some sources classify him as a proto-gnostic, but full blown Gnosticism didn't arrive until the middle of the second century, well after John. According to the article in New Advent, which you cited, we have NO extant writings of Cerinthus and we know nothing about him except what Irenaeus says about him. That is, we only know half of the conversation; we know Irenaeus' rebuttle of Cerinthus, but we can't compare that with what Cerinthus actually taught to see if Irenaeus understood or misunderstood him. The article also says that "Cerinthus's doctrines were a strange mixture of Gnosticism, Judaism, Chiliasm, and Ebionitism." Rather than proving Cerinthus to be a Gnostic, the New Advent article merely highlights that his doctrines had several items in common with these four schools of thought. For instance, according to the article, he DID believe that Jesus came in the flesh, though he believed that Christ was the Holy Ghost that came into Jesus at his baptism and left him at his crucifixion. The point is, that fact that his doctrines had similarities with later Gnosticism doesn't mean he was a Gnostic and it doesn't prove that John had these doctrines in mind when he penned his first epistle.

Hawkins
Oct 30th 2008, 08:46 AM
(1 John 2:22)
And who is a liar? Anyone who says that Jesus is not the Christ. Anyone who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist.


says = preaching a false doctrine directly or indirectly

such as the universalism and the 'no hell' doctrine.

Butch5
Oct 30th 2008, 03:21 PM
BroRog---You're not listening. Irenaeus and Polycarp are no different than you or I. We all have the words of John and can know what Jesus intended for us to learn. John even says as much in his first epistle. "You have the annointed one and you all know." I don't need either one of these men. I have the Apostle himself.

Sorry my friend, but reading John's gospel and his epistles is not the same as sitting under him, Spending time with him, watching how he lived out the gospel that he preach, seeing how he implemented the teachings of Jesus and so on. Polycarp and Ignatius saw these things, they could ask John questions when they needed to. You and I cannot ask John what he meant. You and I cannot see how John implemented Jesus' teaching of the sermon on the mount, or hear John explain how Jesus did miracles. You can dismiss them if you like, however they are a valuable resource.


BroRog---As I said before, the epistles of Paul, Peter, James, and John were written to eye witnesses who simply got it wrong and needed correction. This fact alone should be enough to dissuade you from putting any stock in their writings. If you have the time and enjoy reading these men, then enjoy yourself. But don't cite them as authoritative. They aren't Apostles; they didn't witness Jesus or hear his teaching directly. By the way, you need to check your sources.

Again, why do you assume they got it wrong??? There were false teachers coming into the church claiming authority, yet bringing different teaching.
Also I did not claim the Ante-Nicene writers were authoritative. I gave their writings as support for Scripture.


BroRog---And?

And what was Paul addressing?


BroRog---Some so-called Gnostics claimed that Jesus, the man didn't rise. They did say that "the Christ" rose. And these Gnostics didn't claim that Jesus never came in the flesh. They claimed that Jesus was a man, and that "Christ" entered him at his baptism and left him at his crucifixion. John's warning about the antichrists who say that Jesus didn't come in the flesh, doesn't speak to Gnostic thought, since the Gnostics would have agreed with John that Jesus came in the flesh. To put it another way, if we posit that Jesus was 100% man and 100% God, the Gnostics believed that Jesus was only 100% man, not God; while John was warning us about folks who believed that the messiah would be 100% God and not a man. The two issues are completely different. To say that Jesus didn't come in the flesh is to say that Jesus was not flesh and blood but a spirit only. By contrast, Gnostic doctrine taught that the pnumatikoi, were good spirits trapped in evil flesh, and that knowing this fact was the beginning of a journey back to the good spirit world.


First of all, many of the Gnostic sects had their own brand of Gnosticism. The Gnostics believed that the flesh was evil and that salvation could not come from the flesh. Therefore Christ could not rise bodily for man's salvation. You keep saying that Gnosticism didn't exist during the time the NT was being written. If you are correct Paul and John put an awful lot of time and energy into refuting something that didn't exist.


BroRog---I didn't say the false teachings were mistakes. But don't miss the point. Those who promote the ECF's base their commendation, as you have, on the fact that these men sat under the Apostle John, which supposedly gives them credibility. But the very fact that Paul needed to send letters of correction to people who sat under his teaching clearly demonstrates the error of such an assumption. For this reason, I am not in the least bit interested in what they have to say. And since none of these men have any kind of belief authority, I can't accept their words as authoritative.

First of all, I never said they were authoritative. I don't base their credibility on the fact that they sat under the apostles, that only give their writings more weight. What base the usefulness of the Ante-Nicene Fathers on, is the fact that what they taught, can be found throughout that entire region for a period of at least 225 years. The Church at that time was united, they were united on the main doctrines of hte faith. For 225 years you had the same doctrines taught in Rome, Alexandria, Gaul, Syria, what is now modern day Turkey. From one end of the region to the other they taught the same doctrine. Now, does that mean they were correct? However, they had the faith once for all delivered to the saints. The apostles handed down the faith to the next generation, men like Timothy, Barnabas, Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius. Now, are we to suppose that the apostles handed down the faith to men that they did not think were correct in the doctrine? You say that these men are not inspired, and that is correct, they were not. However, think about this before you dismiss them so quickly. Do you believe that the book of Matthew was inspired? How about the book of Mark, was that inspired? I am going to assume that your answer is yes, if it is not please let me know. So, if Matthew and Mark are are inspired, let me ask you this question. How do we know? How do we know that it was Matthew the apostle who wrote this gospel? He doesn't give his name. the work is anonymous. What about Mark? No name here either, How do we know it was the Mark who traveled with the apostles. If they were written by anyone other than the apostle Matthew and Mark traveling with the Apostles were they inspired? We know that the book of Matthew was written by the apostle from the writings of the Ante Nicene Fathers, They are the ones who tell us that the apostle Matthew is the one who wrote that gospel. The same thing with the gospel of Mark. So, are they good enough to tell us who wrote the books we believe are inspired, but not good enough to accept anything else that they say? If we cannot accept what they say, how can we believe that Matthew and Marks gospels were indeed written by them?




BroRog---They might have value as historical sources, giving us an idea of their practices and beliefs, but I can't say these practices or beliefs have any bearing on what ought to be done. But this brings us back to the issue at hand. Gnosticism was Irenaeus' problem, not John's. Contrary to your source, Cerinthus was not a Gnostic. Some sources classify him as a proto-gnostic, but full blown Gnosticism didn't arrive until the middle of the second century, well after John. According to the article in New Advent, which you cited, we have NO extant writings of Cerinthus and we know nothing about him except what Irenaeus says about him. That is, we only know half of the conversation; we know Irenaeus' rebuttle of Cerinthus, but we can't compare that with what Cerinthus actually taught to see if Irenaeus understood or misunderstood him. The article also says that "Cerinthus's doctrines were a strange mixture of Gnosticism, Judaism, Chiliasm, and Ebionitism." Rather than proving Cerinthus to be a Gnostic, the New Advent article merely highlights that his doctrines had several items in common with these four schools of thought. For instance, according to the article, he DID believe that Jesus came in the flesh, though he believed that Christ was the Holy Ghost that came into Jesus at his baptism and left him at his crucifixion. The point is, that fact that his doctrines had similarities with later Gnosticism doesn't mean he was a Gnostic and it doesn't prove that John had these doctrines in mind when he penned his first epistle.

Well, it is clear you are going to believe what you want to believe no matter what evidence is given to the contrary. While I will grant that Gnosticism was not full blown until the time of Irenaeus, it most certainly did exist in the time of the apostles. I think there is ample evidence that the apostles were addressing Gnosticism, compared with the idea you have posed that John was writing against the Pharisees. I have "NEVER" seen anything even remotely suggesting that the Pharisees denied Christ coming in the flesh.

BroRog
Oct 31st 2008, 02:56 PM
Sorry my friend, but reading John's gospel and his epistles is not the same as sitting under him, Spending time with him, watching how he lived out the gospel that he preach, seeing how he implemented the teachings of Jesus and so on. Polycarp and Ignatius saw these things, they could ask John questions when they needed to.

Again, these men wrote to people who spent time with him, watched how he lived out the gospel, etc. and yet, they got things wrong. Are you trying to argue infallibility for these men? Are you suggesting that John's letters and his gospel are not enough?


You can dismiss them if you like, however they are a valuable resource.

They have nothing to offer me.


Again, why do you assume they got it wrong??? There were false teachers coming into the church claiming authority, yet bringing different teaching.
Also I did not claim the Ante-Nicene writers were authoritative. I gave their writings as support for Scripture.

If, as you say, the Ante-Nicene writers are NOT authoritative, then don't quote them. I do not use outside source to support scripture. I use scripture to critique these outside sources, many of whom are woefully wrong on major doctrines.


First of all, many of the Gnostic sects had their own brand of Gnosticism.


Again, we have no evidence of gnostic sects. We have some little evidence that certain people had ideas that 20th century liberal scholars are attempting to label "gnostic" in order to promote the idea that Gnosticism predated Christianity in an attempt to discredit Christian historians who accept and affirm the supernatural.

Have you ever seen the PBS series "From Jesus to Christ?" That series is based on the work of liberal scholars such as Elaine Pagels, who is attempting to demystify the Christian view of Jesus in search of the "historical" Jesus.


If you are correct Paul and John put an awful lot of time and energy into refuting something that didn't exist.


I am correct and what appears to be a refutation of gnostic thought in Paul and John is a misinterpretation of their writings based on a mistaken assumption that they were dealing with gnosticism. As we study the Bible, we must be very mindful of our assumptions. Do we find arguments against Gnostics in the scriptures or are we putting them there?


First of all, I never said they were authoritative. I don't base their credibility on the fact that they sat under the apostles, that only give their writings more weight.

You just did, at the beginning of your last post to me.


However, they had the faith once for all delivered to the saints.


Do you know that the ECF movement started with the Catholic Apologists in an attempt to claim Apostolic succession for themselves? I do not accept the idea that these men had the faith once delivered unless I can be convinced from scripture. But then, you seem to dismiss my own discipleship as being inferior. Do you agree with the Catholic dogma that suggests I am not smart enough to understand what I read?


You say that these men are not inspired, and that is correct, they were not.


Okay, end of story.


So, if Matthew and Mark are are inspired, let me ask you this question. How do we know?

You want me to accept the word of men who lived a hundred years after the fact over scripture? You want me to read and study the ECF's because Matthew and Mark are not inspired?


Well, it is clear you are going to believe what you want to believe no matter what evidence is given to the contrary. While I will grant that Gnosticism was not full blown until the time of Irenaeus, it most certainly did exist in the time of the apostles. I think there is ample evidence that the apostles were addressing Gnosticism, compared with the idea you have posed that John was writing against the Pharisees. I have "NEVER" seen anything even remotely suggesting that the Pharisees denied Christ coming in the flesh.

Okay, so the true basis of rejecting my view is the fact that you had never heard it before?

σяєяυииєя
Oct 31st 2008, 06:32 PM
I have "NEVER" seen anything even remotely suggesting that the Pharisees denied Christ coming in the flesh.

Right,

What they denied was Jesus divinity.

And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? John 6:40-42.


Fareyewell

BroRog
Nov 1st 2008, 12:15 AM
Right,

What they denied was Jesus divinity.

And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? John 6:40-42.


Fareyewell



Some of them taught that the Messiah would be a supernatural figure, not human at all. The author of Hebrews dealt with this in the first and second chapter of his epistle to the Hebrews.

Humility23
Nov 1st 2008, 12:26 AM
This verse is NOT talking about people who don't believe in Christ. John is talking about people who believe in God, and believe that the Messiah is going to come. Nonetheless, these same people don't believe Jesus is the Messiah. They don't deny God. They don't deny that a Messiah will come. What they deny is that Jesus is him.

These were people who studied their Bible in anticipation of the coming Messiah. They poured through the scriptures looking for clues to his identity. What will the Messiah do? How will he act? What can we exect from him when he arrives?

Jesus did not fit their picture. They looked at him and said, "Nah, he's not the one." He got himself killed. He was an embarrassment to God and his people. He wasn't the Messiah.

John points out that if we deny that Jesus is the Messiah, to deny the son is to also deny the father. Jesus' ministry was attended by so many miracles, so many acts of kindness, so many acts of righteousness, to deny that Jesus was the Messiah is to deny the obvious.

Your unbelieving friends can't be antiChrist since they haven't got a clue what that even means. The one who has no excuse is the one who should know better.


Just because people may be ignorant to the truth doesn't mean that they won't be held accountable. Before you were saved, if we were to "deny that JEUS is the CHIRST" (1 John 2:22) then we would be antichrists too...There is no "plausible deniability" with GOD.

Butch5
Nov 1st 2008, 01:15 AM
BroRog---Again, these men wrote to people who spent time with him, watched how he lived out the gospel, etc. and yet, they got things wrong. Are you trying to argue infallibility for these men? Are you suggesting that John's letters and his gospel are not enough?


No, what I'm suggesting is that without knowing what the issue is that John is dealing with you are unable to know what the answer means. Suppose I was to write you and say, put the red one on the table, the blue one on the floor and the green one on the couch. can you do that ? Can you do that without knowing what the red, blue, and green ones are?



BroRog---If, as you say, the Ante-Nicene writers are NOT authoritative, then don't quote them. I do not use outside source to support scripture. I use scripture to critique these outside sources, many of whom are woefully wrong on major doctrines.

You use you understanding of Scripture??? It's one thing to say I use Scripture, it is another to use your understanding of Scripture. That's not meant as an insult, my point is this, if you use Scripture to critique outside sources and I use Scripture to critique outside sources and, as in this case we come to a different conclusion we can't both be right. So, the question then becomes are we understanding the Scriptures correctly



BroRog---Again, we have no evidence of gnostic sects. We have some little evidence that certain people had ideas that 20th century liberal scholars are attempting to label "gnostic" in order to promote the idea that Gnosticism predated Christianity in an attempt to discredit Christian historians who accept and affirm the supernatural.

Have you ever seen the PBS series "From Jesus to Christ?" That series is based on the work of liberal scholars such as Elaine Pagels, who is attempting to demystify the Christian view of Jesus in search of the "historical" Jesus.


Gnostic writings have been found that back up the Ante-Nicene descriptions of Gnosticism.


BroRog---I am correct and what appears to be a refutation of gnostic thought in Paul and John is a misinterpretation of their writings based on a mistaken assumption that they were dealing with gnosticism. As we study the Bible, we must be very mindful of our assumptions. Do we find arguments against Gnostics in the scriptures or are we putting them there?


Dude, you have given no evidence.



BroRog---You just did, at the beginning of your last post to me.

No, I beg to differ.


BroRog---Do you know that the ECF movement started with the Catholic Apologists in an attempt to claim Apostolic succession for themselves? I do not accept the idea that these men had the faith once delivered unless I can be convinced from scripture. But then, you seem to dismiss my own discipleship as being inferior. Do you agree with the Catholic dogma that suggests I am not smart enough to understand what I read?


How did I dismiss anything? I didn't say you couldn't understand.


BroRog---You want me to accept the word of men who lived a hundred years after the fact over scripture? You want me to read and study the ECF's because Matthew and Mark are not inspired?



No, I never said to accept them over Scripture, what I said was, if you accept Matthew and Mark as inspired, it is based on the Ante-Nicene Fathers because they are the ones who tell us that Matthew and Mark wrote the gospels that bear their names. Are they good enough that we can trust what they say about these gospels, yet not good enough that we can trust anything else they say?



BroRog---Okay, so the true basis of rejecting my view is the fact that you had never heard it before?


No, I don't reject it because I never heard it before. For one thing, you gave no supporting evidence when you posted it. Second, The pharisees in the Bible spoke to Jesus so I don't think they denied that He came in the flesh.

Are you Brother Roger from PFRS?

BroRog
Nov 1st 2008, 04:30 PM
Just because people may be ignorant to the truth doesn't mean that they won't be held accountable. Before you were saved, if we were to "deny that JEUS is the CHIRST" (1 John 2:22) then we would be antichrists too...There is no "plausible deniability" with GOD.

And you know this how?

Dragonfighter1
Nov 1st 2008, 04:44 PM
I just need to know, I believe in Gods existance, but is not sure whether I am a christian.....
Linda,
I know this is off topic but your question needs an answer.

There is a passage that says: "Even the devils believe" I can assure you that believing in Gods existence may take a great deal of faith for some people who have skeptical minds but that DOES NOT make them a Christian.

To be a Christian you must not only believe he is, but that he is a rewarder of those who seek him...
To amplify. I believe you exist, but Do I have a relationship with you? NO.
Hey, but I've even talked to you (Am doing so now) but does that mean I have a relationship? NO!
So what is the basis of a relationship????
It is an emotional connection caused/brought about by earnest desire! If you desire God with all your heart, mind and soul, he will bridge the gap to you. He will save you on the basis of an earnest request for salvation based on sincerity, and honest admittance that you are a sinner(imperfect person).

There is no perfect way to word your prayer, any more than there is a perfect phrase for picking up chicks:) (although everyman on earth jokes about pick up lines, and tries to find the best one :lol: )

So it is with God. Just as a women responds, not so much to the words as, to the intent of her suitor, so God responds- not to perfect pick up lines- but to the heart intent of the suitor.

Pray for salvation, earnestly seek to love him with all your heart.

You cant do it perfectly and he knows that. But he can tell if you are sincere.... AND THAT is all you need!

God Bless

DF1

BroRog
Nov 1st 2008, 05:09 PM
No, what I'm suggesting is that without knowing what the issue is that John is dealing with you are unable to know what the answer means.

I'm arguing, not against our discovery of the issue, but the assumption that Gnosticism was the issue. I'm arguing first, that Gnosticism was not the issue for John because Gnosticism was a second century issue, not a first century issue. Second, I am arguing that without the a-priori assumption that John is dealing with Gnosticism, his letter reads quite differently. Consequently, commentators and Bible students have been applying the wrong background information to the text and coming to the wrong conclusions about John's epistle for years.


You use you understanding of Scripture??? It's one thing to say I use Scripture, it is another to use your understanding of Scripture.

I don't think these are different at all. When we discuss the scriptures, aren't we discussing our understanding of them? What else could it mean?


That's not meant as an insult, my point is this, if you use Scripture to critique outside sources and I use Scripture to critique outside sources and, as in this case we come to a different conclusion we can't both be right. So, the question then becomes are we understanding the Scriptures correctly.

That's true. But that is not what is going on here. Rather, you are using an outside source as background material to formulate an interpretation of the scriptures. Our discussion here has two main themes: 1. the claim that John is dealing with Gnosticism and 2. the relative advantage the so-called ECF's have with regard to understanding the Apostolic Gospel. I'm arguing that Gnostic thought was a later heresy, and that the ECF's have no advantage over us with regard to a proper understanding of what the Apostles taught.


How did I dismiss anything? I didn't say you couldn't understand.


You are saying that since certain men studied "under" John, they know better what John taught that I do. You seem to imply that without the writings of the ECF's we can't know what John meant to say in his letters.


No, I never said to accept them over Scripture, what I said was, if you accept Matthew and Mark as inspired, it is based on the Ante-Nicene Fathers because they are the ones who tell us that Matthew and Mark wrote the gospels that bear their names. Are they good enough that we can trust what they say about these gospels, yet not good enough that we can trust anything else they say?

Before making this the basis of your case, you should have asked me whether I accept the inspiration of Matthew and Mark based on the Ante-Nicene so-called fathers. I do affirm that Matthew and Mark are inspired, but not on the basis of these men's word.


No, I don't reject it because I never heard it before. For one thing, you gave no supporting evidence when you posted it. Second, The pharisees in the Bible spoke to Jesus so I don't think they denied that He came in the flesh.


In my original statement I said two things at the same time. I said that John was not dealing with the Gnostics. And I said that John was dealing with the Pharisees. So far, our discusion has centered around your challenge of my first statement. I gave no evidence for my second assertion because it hasn't come to that point in our discussion yet.

Now, as our discussion progresses, we need to take a step back and look at certain phrases like "came in the flesh" objectively. That is, if you are going to understand evidence for my second assertion, you will need to temporarily suspend your commitment to Gnosticism as the background for the text. In order to understand what I would say, anyone reading my argument would need to be able to ask, "if John was not dealing with Gnostic thought, what would he mean by "come in the flesh?" It's tempting to just say, "It's obvious that the false teachers denied that Jesus was a human being." But is it THAT obvious if we don't already bring that assumption to the text?

Butch5
Nov 1st 2008, 08:13 PM
I'm arguing, not against our discovery of the issue, but the assumption that Gnosticism was the issue. I'm arguing first, that Gnosticism was not the issue for John because Gnosticism was a second century issue, not a first century issue. Second, I am arguing that without the a-priori assumption that John is dealing with Gnosticism, his letter reads quite differently. Consequently, commentators and Bible students have been applying the wrong background information to the text and coming to the wrong conclusions about John's epistle for years.

You are arguing with no evidence.


I don't think these are different at all. When we discuss the scriptures, aren't we discussing our understanding of them? What else could it mean?


It doesn't matter what my understanding of Scripture is, if it is not correct.



That's true. But that is not what is going on here. Rather, you are using an outside source as background material to formulate an interpretation of the scriptures. Our discussion here has two main themes: 1. the claim that John is dealing with Gnosticism and 2. the relative advantage the so-called ECF's have with regard to understanding the Apostolic Gospel. I'm arguing that Gnostic thought was a later heresy, and that the ECF's have no advantage over us with regard to a proper understanding of what the Apostles taught.

Since John doesn't tell us who he is writing against, we only have a secondary sources.



You are saying that since certain men studied "under" John, they know better what John taught that I do. You seem to imply that without the writings of the ECF's we can't know what John meant to say in his letters.


Are you saying the you know just as much about what John taught, as the men who traveled and lived with Him? The ECF's had no confusion about who it was that John was referencing.




Before making this the basis of your case, you should have asked me whether I accept the inspiration of Matthew and Mark based on the Ante-Nicene so-called fathers. I do affirm that Matthew and Mark are inspired, but not on the basis of these men's word.

What then is the basis for your acceptance of these gospels as inspired, if not from these men?


In my original statement I said two things at the same time. I said that John was not dealing with the Gnostics. And I said that John was dealing with the Pharisees. So far, our discusion has centered around your challenge of my first statement. I gave no evidence for my second assertion because it hasn't come to that point in our discussion yet.

You also gave no evidence that the Gnostic theory was incorrect. I gave evidence from several sources that Gnosticism was around during the time of the apostles, you said this was incorrect, yet you gave no evidence to support your claim. Shall we just accept you word?


Now, as our discussion progresses, we need to take a step back and look at certain phrases like "came in the flesh" objectively. That is, if you are going to understand evidence for my second assertion, you will need to temporarily suspend your commitment to Gnosticism as the background for the text. In order to understand what I would say, anyone reading my argument would need to be able to ask, "if John was not dealing with Gnostic thought, what would he mean by "come in the flesh?" It's tempting to just say, "It's obvious that the false teachers denied that Jesus was a human being." But is it THAT obvious if we don't already bring that assumption to the text?

Have at it.

Hey, are you the BR from PFRS?

BroRog
Nov 2nd 2008, 12:18 AM
You are arguing with no evidence.

Actually, it is you who must provide evidence since you are arguing the affirmative. I already took us back to your citation from the Catholic Encyclopidia to point out that you had jumped to conclusions about the presence of Gnosticism in the first century, and I also pointed out the current modern movement to rewrite history to suggest that Gnosticism predates Christianity in order to give it credibility.


It doesn't matter what my understanding of Scripture is, if it is not correct.

Granted, but the question remains whether someone should uncritically accept what the so-called ECF's say. If we do, we are asking for trouble.


Since John doesn't tell us who he is writing against, we only have a secondary sources.

Secondary sources shouldn't be accepted uncritically. We still need to do the hard work of exegesis.


Are you saying the you know just as much about what John taught, as the men who traveled and lived with Him? The ECF's had no confusion about who it was that John was referencing.


Again, it does not follow that if a man travels and lives with somebody, they necessarily understand what he teaches. I already pointed out the fact that Peter, James, and Paul wrote epistles to correct errors of men and women who lived with these Apostles for months and sometimes years. Secondly, just because the ECF's are not confused doesn't make them right.


You also gave no evidence that the Gnostic theory was incorrect. I gave evidence from several sources that Gnosticism was around during the time of the apostles, you said this was incorrect, yet you gave no evidence to support your claim.

The only person you offered as being a first century Gnostic was Cerinthus, whom we already saw was not a Gnostic but a man with a mixture of different ideas.

I am not from PFRS.

Butch5
Nov 2nd 2008, 02:22 AM
BroRog---Actually, it is you who must provide evidence since you are arguing the affirmative. I already took us back to your citation from the Catholic Encyclopidia to point out that you had jumped to conclusions about the presence of Gnosticism in the first century, and I also pointed out the current modern movement to rewrite history to suggest that Gnosticism predates Christianity in order to give it credibility.

You have not given one shred of evidence to refute the idea that John was addressing Gnosticism.




BroRog---Granted, but the question remains whether someone should uncritically accept what the so-called ECF's say. If we do, we are asking for trouble.

I don't uncritically accept them.




BroRog---Secondary sources shouldn't be accepted uncritically. We still need to do the hard work of exegesis.

They are not uncritically accepted.



BroRog---Again, it does not follow that if a man travels and lives with somebody, they necessarily understand what he teaches. I already pointed out the fact that Peter, James, and Paul wrote epistles to correct errors of men and women who lived with these Apostles for months and sometimes years. Secondly, just because the ECF's are not confused doesn't make them right.

Please show me where the apostles wrote to correct those who lived and traveled with them.




BroRog---The only person you offered as being a first century Gnostic was Cerinthus, whom we already saw was not a Gnostic but a man with a mixture of different ideas.

NO, you did not show that he was not a Gnostic, He held to Gnostic beliefs that makes him a Gnostic.

And as yet you have provided no evidence to support your claim that it was the Pharisees that John was addressing.

BroRog
Nov 2nd 2008, 05:15 PM
You have not given one shred of evidence to refute the idea that John was addressing Gnosticism.

Again, it is you that must provide the evidence since you are arguing the affirmative. So far, all you have is a man called Cerinthus. We have none of his writings at all. We don't know what he actually taught. All we have are what his critics say about him.

Second, you took me to an article from New Advent in which they say, "In Asia he founded a school and gathered disciples. No writings of any kind have come down to us. Cerinthus's doctrines were a strange mixture of Gnosticism, Judaism, Chiliasm, and Ebionitism", which means that he was not committed to any particular one. We can't say he was a Gnostic because he had a "strange mixture" of various ideas, not a firm commitment to one. And I suspect that the label "Gnosticism" is being used retrospectively, since no person or group in the first century actually applied the term to themselves.


Please show me where the apostles wrote to correct those who lived and traveled with them.

Paul wrote all of his epistles, except the letter to the Romans, to people who sat and listened to his teaching for many months and sometimes years. In his scolding letter to the Galatians he writes to them with a familiarity unknown to a traveling preacher, suggesting that were they able, they would have taken their eyes out to give to him. He spent a lot of time in Corinth and wrote at least three letters to them, correcting many of their errors. He wrote to Philippi, one of his favorite churches in my opinion, to ask them to get along with each other.


And as yet you have provided no evidence to support your claim that it was the Pharisees that John was addressing.

That's right. I haven't. I might if we get that far.

Butch5
Nov 2nd 2008, 07:11 PM
BroRog---Again, it is you that must provide the evidence since you are arguing the affirmative. So far, all you have is a man called Cerinthus. We have none of his writings at all. We don't know what he actually taught. All we have are what his critics say about him.

Second, you took me to an article from New Advent in which they say, "In Asia he founded a school and gathered disciples. No writings of any kind have come down to us. Cerinthus's doctrines were a strange mixture of Gnosticism, Judaism, Chiliasm, and Ebionitism", which means that he was not committed to any particular one. We can't say he was a Gnostic because he had a "strange mixture" of various ideas, not a firm commitment to one. And I suspect that the label "Gnosticism" is being used retrospectively, since no person or group in the first century actually applied the term to themselves.

You claim I'm wrong, yet you gave no evidence to support this claim.



BroRog---Paul wrote all of his epistles, except the letter to the Romans, to people who sat and listened to his teaching for many months and sometimes years. In his scolding letter to the Galatians he writes to them with a familiarity unknown to a traveling preacher, suggesting that were they able, they would have taken their eyes out to give to him. He spent a lot of time in Corinth and wrote at least three letters to them, correcting many of their errors. He wrote to Philippi, one of his favorite churches in my opinion, to ask them to get along with each other.

Yes, He did, howeve, it is one thing to sit and listen to his teachings, and another thing to be personally discipled by him.



BroRog---That's right. I haven't. I might if we get that far.

We probably won't, because I am not going to continue since you are aguing from silence.

BroRog
Nov 3rd 2008, 06:26 AM
We probably won't, because I am not going to continue since you are aguing from silence.

Butch,

In the past few days I have been trying to get you to see three things. 1.) We must remain constantly aware of the biases that others have handed us as we study the scriptures. 2.) tempting as it is, we must resist the temptation to peek at the "teacher's addition" of the Bible, which comes in the forms of commentaries, study Bibles, and the ECF's. and 3.) Gnosticism came much too late for the authors of the NT to speak to that issue.

If you don't agree with number 3, that's okay with me. But please consider 1) and 2) and take them to heart.

With regard to my statement about the Pharisees, consider this. If someone had not told us (and I include myself in this also) that John was warning his readers against Docetism in 1John 2:22, would we have come to that conclusion on our own? Maybe. But there are other plausible interpretations possible.

For instance, after the Babylonian Captivity, Jewish writers had a low expectation of the arrival of the Messiah, and especially during the Hasmonian Dynasty when the rulers were not of Davidic descent. It wasn't until after the Roman invasion and the reign of the Herods that the people began to anticipate the Messiah again.

The Rabbi (Pharisees) were of two minds about the Messiah. Some of them anticipated a human figure who would come and overthrow the Romans. While other Rabbi anticipated a supernatural figure that would come to restore Israel and rule the world from Jerusalem. (Perhaps I'm being overly brief.)

After the death of the real Messiah, Jesus, the anticipation of a supernatural Messiah figure never died out. In fact, some scribes and Pharisees actually proposed two different Messiahs: a human figure that would die in a war between Israel and Gog (Rome) and a supernatural deity that would come to resurrect the first Messiah and establish his kingdom of righteouness on earth.

This view is not Docetic, it merely attempts to make sense of the OT evidence of two different Messiah figures. This view is not motivated by Persian dualism, which says that the material world is evil. The Jewish view of the time was simply trying to make sense of messianic passages of scripture that specified an eternal ruler on the throne of David.

John's word of caution makes sense even within a particular Jewish eschatology, without any need to assume Docetism was in view. John could be speaking to a Jewish Rabbi, who assumed the view that God was going to send a supernatural, not a human figure, to save Israel.

And it seems unfair to paint these Jewish scholars as Docetic, when they did not affirm the basic underlying assumptions of the Docetists. Just like the rest of us, these men were advancing theories that attempted to make sense of obsure and cloudy prophetic oracles from God conserning the future. They were wrong, and mistaken, but their underlying theological point of view was not the idea that the material world was evil.

Kudo Shinichi
Nov 3rd 2008, 02:33 PM
John 2:22 (New International Version)

New International Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=31) (NIV) Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society (http://www.ibs.org/)
http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgview.php?what=22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgclick.php?what=22) http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgview.php?what=10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgclick.php?what=10) http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgview.php?what=26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgclick.php?what=26) http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgview.php?what=2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgclick.php?what=2)

22After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

I not sure but the LORD Jesus Christ has an incorruptible body and he wasn't a ghost, okey!!!
Luke 24:36-48
Jesus Appears to the Disciples

36While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you." 37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."
40When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence.
44He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."
45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things. 49I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I may add one thing?
the gnostics believed flesh was evil, therefore God wouldn't possess a human body, therefore they taught Jesus's body was a phantom, not flesh. This is also why john wrote in 1 John 1:1 "what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of Life"

Butch5
Nov 4th 2008, 03:01 AM
Butch,

In the past few days I have been trying to get you to see three things. 1.) We must remain constantly aware of the biases that others have handed us as we study the scriptures. 2.) tempting as it is, we must resist the temptation to peek at the "teacher's addition" of the Bible, which comes in the forms of commentaries, study Bibles, and the ECF's. and 3.) Gnosticism came much too late for the authors of the NT to speak to that issue.

If you don't agree with number 3, that's okay with me. But please consider 1) and 2) and take them to heart.

With regard to my statement about the Pharisees, consider this. If someone had not told us (and I include myself in this also) that John was warning his readers against Docetism in 1John 2:22, would we have come to that conclusion on our own? Maybe. But there are other plausible interpretations possible.

For instance, after the Babylonian Captivity, Jewish writers had a low expectation of the arrival of the Messiah, and especially during the Hasmonian Dynasty when the rulers were not of Davidic descent. It wasn't until after the Roman invasion and the reign of the Herods that the people began to anticipate the Messiah again.

The Rabbi (Pharisees) were of two minds about the Messiah. Some of them anticipated a human figure who would come and overthrow the Romans. While other Rabbi anticipated a supernatural figure that would come to restore Israel and rule the world from Jerusalem. (Perhaps I'm being overly brief.)

After the death of the real Messiah, Jesus, the anticipation of a supernatural Messiah figure never died out. In fact, some scribes and Pharisees actually proposed two different Messiahs: a human figure that would die in a war between Israel and Gog (Rome) and a supernatural deity that would come to resurrect the first Messiah and establish his kingdom of righteouness on earth.

This view is not Docetic, it merely attempts to make sense of the OT evidence of two different Messiah figures. This view is not motivated by Persian dualism, which says that the material world is evil. The Jewish view of the time was simply trying to make sense of messianic passages of scripture that specified an eternal ruler on the throne of David.

John's word of caution makes sense even within a particular Jewish eschatology, without any need to assume Docetism was in view. John could be speaking to a Jewish Rabbi, who assumed the view that God was going to send a supernatural, not a human figure, to save Israel.

And it seems unfair to paint these Jewish scholars as Docetic, when they did not affirm the basic underlying assumptions of the Docetists. Just like the rest of us, these men were advancing theories that attempted to make sense of obsure and cloudy prophetic oracles from God conserning the future. They were wrong, and mistaken, but their underlying theological point of view was not the idea that the material world was evil.

That's fine, and I could look at that as a possibility, however I would need evidence which supports the idea. I have not see this theory, nor any evidence that supports it. If there is evidence and it is credible then the theory seems plausible. Do you have evidence?

As far as points one and two, I don't just accept what people or commentaries or the ECF's say. I did that before and got lead astray. Now I check things out.

BroRog
Nov 4th 2008, 04:22 AM
That's fine, and I could look at that as a possibility, however I would need evidence which supports the idea. I have not see this theory, nor any evidence that supports it. If there is evidence and it is credible then the theory seems plausible. Do you have evidence?

As far as points one and two, I don't just accept what people or commentaries or the ECF's say. I did that before and got lead astray. Now I check things out.

Check out this link for starters. Glenn is well respected in Apologetics circles because he takes the time to do the research. In the following article he quotes passages from various sources including the Dead Sea Scrolls, Targums, Midrash, Old Testament, etc. to demonstrate that the Jews anticipated the Messiah well before the arrival of Jesus. On that web page, he talks about the two messiah theory.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/messiah.html

Messianic Expectations in 1st Century Judaism (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/messiah.html)