Gnosticism 2

I just read all 8 pages of the Gnostic (part 1) thread and saw NO evidence of Gnostic influence on the MV's presented.

Not only that, I've read the NIV and NASB and there is NO Gnostic influence.

BTW, I am very familiar with Gnostic believs having been in New Age beliefs (which have many Gnostic elements in them) for about 20 years, and from having read Gnostic writings for research in my ministry.

At this very moment, on the floor by my desk, is Kurt Randolph's Gnosis: The Nature & History of Gnosticism (he is an expert on this area), and The Nag Hammadi Library , which contains actual Gnostic writings. I've read through much of this for papers and articles I've written. Do any of you KJVO people have these books?

I still await evidence that the MV's have Gnostic influence and I want to see MV texts, in context, that show Gnostic beliefs. I have not found any.

 

Marcia,

It was already given to you and you scoffed it off as though it was nothing. <attack snipped> You won't see it because of this, regardless of how much evidence is given you.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

[ September 09, 2004, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

Marcia,

You still can't see can you?

If you could understand, you would understand

But there is no gnostism going on around here.

Bro Tony

 

Some here will say that evidence has been presented, when it truly has not. There is no evidence to prove that the MV's were influenced, or are being influenced by gnoticism. Thomas Strouse was one of my favorite professors at MBBC back in the early 1980's. I haven't had the opportunity to read the book mentioned in this thread, but will be reading it shortly if I can obtain it.

Other people whom several will quote here are David Cloud, David Sorenson and Riplinger. I know David Sorenson personally, and have corresponded with David Cloud to some extent. Just reading the "Ripper" will tell you that she lies about the influences involved.

AVL1984

 

--------------------------------------------------
If you could understand, you would understand

But there is no gnostism going on around here.

Bro Tony
--------------------------------------------------

I can see it, and understand it, and many others also can. Yes, I understand it, and can see it, and many of you do not, cannot, or will not. This is not gnosticism. You don't even know what gnosticism is. Gnosticism sure is going on around here, but it ain't comin from where YOU THINK it is, or where you insinuate it is.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle, yes, I would see it. And if I did, I would expose it. That is what my ministry is about and what I speak on around the country and on radio shows, and in published articles. I would know it sooner than most people because I can smell it.

What you write here is basically called an ad hominem. You are making remarks that I don't see the evidence of gnosticism because I am caught up in my "love for" the mv's. This is NOT evidence; this is a personal remark about me that is not even true.

You did not present evidence. I looked at some of the so-called evidence and it is not there. I want to see it in the MV texts themselves.

 

"The Nag Hammadi Library , which contains actual Gnostic writings."
''
Everybody seriously wanting to debate gnosticism should read at least some of it (only reading the gospel of Thomas doesn't count).
While we are at it, I must mention the writings of Gilles Quispel, THE expert in this field.

 

You will be waiting a long, long time because it isn't any in the MV texts.

 

Michelle,

You said, "You don't even know what gnosticism is."

How would you define it?

You also said, "You have numbed yourself to the truth. You won't see it because of this, regardless of how much evidence is given you."

That's really kind of mean!It also sounds like your claiming that knowledge outside of reading the scripures is required for understanding.

 

What do you think of this quotations? </font>[/QUOTE]Where's his proof?

 

Askjo: What do you think of this quotations?

Askjo (quoting Strouse): "Gnostics attacked the NT manuscripts shortly after they were written and substituted Biblical Christology with Gnostic Christology."

Boy did those Gnostics do a poor job! *Not one* clearly Gnostic reading or comment such as is found in any of the extra-biblical Gnostic literature (i.e. Nag Hammadi MSS, Pistis Sophia, etc.) seems to have made it into *any* existing NT Greek manuscript -- not even the pseudo-biblical Gnostic corrupt readings such as are found in the Gospel of Thomas! Wonder why that might be (unless the existing NT MSS simply are *not* "Gnostic", regardless of texttype)....

And if so, then the subsequent deduction from the prior false logic is false:

"NT manuscripts conductive to Gnostic Christology are the basis for modern versions. These versions in turn promote Gnostic Christology."

Simply not so, Q.E.D., end of discussion.

 

King James Version Onlyism is a form of gnosticism, in that it is based on extra-biblical doctrine that relies on a "special revelation" of the truth, i.e. that the King James Version is God's pure and true words to man.

There is so much garbage being posted about ehat 'gnosticism' is, but all of it is about a link to a group that calls themselves Gnostics. Hello???!!! Does that sound as silly to anyone else as it does to me?

Just because some New Age groupies decided it would be cool to use a word like 'gnosticism' to describe themselves and their beliefs does not mean that that is the only meaning of 'gnosticism'. I could call myself "eggplant", but that doesn't mean that all eggplants are 6' tall with black hair and blue eyes, does it? So how does a group calling themselves Gnostics suddenly make them the only possible definition of the word?

Gnosticism is based upon "secret knowledge"...just like the deception of the KJVO lies. So, basically:
Gnosticism = KJVOism = Man-made myth

Any questions?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

1611 KJV Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art Christ, the Sonne of the liuing God.

1769 KJV Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Could it be that the 1769 KJV has gnostic influence?

Or, didn't we recently have a bout concerning the New Age use of "the Christ"?

HankD

 

What do you think of this quotations? </font>[/QUOTE]Askjo, these are spurious claims with no evidence at all. I would be out there with an article on my website exposing the Gnosticism in MVs if it were there.

Contrary to what Michelle believes, I have no special "love" for MVs. I was saved only 13 1/2 yrs ago, which at my age (which I am NOT telling) is not very long ago. So I've had no time to develop some kind of deep-seated loyalty to any version. I call it as I see it with New Age (or Gnostic stuff) and often take unpopular stands (I'm talking within the church) for what I say. So there is nothing stopping me from exposing Gnosticism in MVs except that there is none there!

 

What do you think of this quotations? </font>[/QUOTE]Though he was one of my favorite professors at MBBC, I believe he is wrong in his quotes. From the quotes, I see no evidence of Gnosticism being transferred into the MV's.

AVL1984

 

What do you think of this quotations? </font>[/QUOTE]Where's his proof? </font>[/QUOTE]I hate to say it, but I don't believe he's shown any proof.

AVL1984

 

Must be that advanced revelation stuff he has then.