Gnosticism 2

Dr. Pickering quoted:
quote:
---------------------------------------------
That such a nice Gnostic variants came in being is no surprise, but why do modern editors embrace it? Most modern versions join UBS in this error
---------------------------------------------

This cannot be considered as evidence until
we independantly confirm that Dr. Pickering
said and that said it in the context you
suppect it was said. Until then it is a
waste of your time to repeat it, it a waste of
the BB space to store it.

[attemt to shame the poster into doing
what he should have done the first time
he brought forth this possible "quote"
-- attemt self censored]

 

Askjo said "That is very obvious to show that MVs are based on gnostic readings from the Alexandrian family of MSS."

No, it is not obvious. Not obvious at all, for most of us do not see it. Perhaps you would be kind enough to provide a specific example of a Gnostic reading in the Alexandrian mss, and an explanation of why it is Gnostic. Quoting someone who says Gnostic readings exist in modern versions is not good enough. I can quote someone that says Santa Claus is real, but that doesn't make it so. Let's see some specifics.

Askjo said "Anyone of you deny the gnostics dealt deceitfully with MVs."

Yes, I deny it.

Askjo said " The massive problem that you have is the Webster 1828 Dictionary."

No, Webster simply defined Gnosticism. He did not prove Gnostic corruption exists in Bibles that were produced after he himself had died.

Askjo said "If he is right, why did YOU, Marica and others deny it?"

Accepting a dictionary definition of Gnosticism and denying Gnostic corruption exists in modern versions is two different things. I also accept the dictionary definition of cabbages, but that doesn't mean a cabbage corrupted my NIV.

 

Askjo, you have provided no evidence nor an example from an MV that there is gnostic influence in the MVs. You just keep posting that Pickering asserts it and the give us a dictionary definition of gnosticims.

I am not denying that gnosticism existed and lives on through various religions today -- you can find elements of it in Hinduism, the Kabbalah, and the New Age.

But you have provided no evidence. Surely, if Pickering asserts that there is Gnostic influence in the MVs, then he must be able to give an example that you can quote, or a passage that you can give, where this Gnostic influence exists in the MVs.

Just claiming something over and over again without giving an example or any evidence at all does not make it true.

 

I have, and you all scoffed at it.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Point proven.

Galatians 5
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, ...
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

HankD (a stubborn mule)

 

Askjo,

Where did all of the gnosticism stuff come from???

I think all of us who are NON-KJVO would readily admit that there is no reason to see ANY gnostic corruption in the KJV or its texts. The only thing even resembling gnosticism is the claim by certain posters that one must have some sort of enlightnement to see the truth about versions.

Regarding gnosticism in the MV realm. There have been many accusations made aganist MVs - stating that they remove the divinity of Christ. This would not be something that most early church gnostics would have suggested. They'd have insisted that Jesus was God and that the physical body was a shadow of sorts. Anyway gnostic influence is neither discernible nor provable!

In my mind your strongest argument is that the KJB was here essentially by itself for years - thus it MUST be God's word. The MVs, in their slight differences, might be viewed as obligately subordinate in doctrinal authority.

My $0.02.

 

--------------------------------------------------
The only thing even resembling gnosticism is the claim by certain posters that one must have some sort of enlightnement to see the truth about versions.
--------------------------------------------------


Please refer to the scriptures that Hank posted above. This is a false accusation against me, and anyone else that has been accused of this.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle,

If the shoe doesn't fit then don't wear it!

I hope that you do NOT believe that. But if you do you're wrong.

And the gnostics (as well as most other heretical sects) believed that they had scripture to back up their positions!

 

--------------------------------------------------
And the gnostics (as well as most other heretical sects) believed that they had scripture to back up their positions!
--------------------------------------------------


And just what is it that you have to back up your position?


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Askjo,

The claims made in that article are not without merit. We all know that Alexandria was a weird place. We still however have NO PROOF that Sinaiticus is either pure or corrupt - just guesswork on both sides.

Anyway you slice it the claims made against the MVs in their existent states are not consistent with gnostic thought.

 

Michelle,

I'm not sure what you'rer asking me.

I'll say this.

You and I are both Christians. We both carry a KJB to church. I have a hard time believing that there is any sort of secret knowledge out there that I cannot find in my bible. You and I may well disagree on many issues - and we likely each have arguements to back up our positions.

But if you insist that you have some sort of knowledge that has been revealed to you (outside the bible) then you're treading on questionable ground. This would in fact be quasi-gnostic.

 

Amen, Brother Charles Meadows -- Preach it!

 

--------------------------------------------------
But if you insist that you have some sort of knowledge that has been revealed to you (outside the bible) then you're treading on questionable ground. This would in fact be quasi-gnostic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I NEVER said that I did. I have given you all quite plainly and abundantly the reasons for my belief and what supports my belief: faith, scriptures, history, evidence, and the leading of the Holy Spirit of truth.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Nowhere does this article give any evidence of Gnostic influence in the MV's nor give an example of such.

The claim you made is that there is Gnostic influence on the MVs. If that is so, we should be able to see it somewhere in the MVs, but we do not. This article did not give any examples, either.

There are Gnostic writings and there are the so-called Gnostic Gospels, which are not in the canon of scripture. But there is nothing in the MVs that reveals Gnostic beliefs. Rather, there are passages in the MVs that refute Gnostic beliefs, as I mentioned earlier.

You should either take back your assertion or give some evidence for it as it is a very serious accusation. I've asked for solid examples before on other threads, and none have been given.

 

Funny, I was reading the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in my NIV today, and I could find nowhere where they take away from the diety of Christ. There doesn't seem to be any Gnosticism in the NIV I have. I've done the same with the NASB over the past week, as well as the NKJV. I just can't seem to find that Gnosticism.

AVL1984

 

Askjo
"The massive problem that you have is the Webster 1828 Dictionary. Was Webster right to define what gnostic is?"
"
Only a little, you see in 1945 a complete library of Gnostic religious texts (including a number of gnostic pseudo-gospels) was discovered in Nag Hammadi in Egypt. We nowadays have a much clearer of what gnosticism is than Webster's could have had in 1828. That dictionary is outdated.

Michelle
You have to give Charles Meadows a little credit for one thing. He at least carries a KJB to church every sunday. I would (almost) never do that.

 

From website info (finally!) posted by Askjo:

Robert Stewart: "My investigations revealed that the joint UBS/Nestle-Aland Editorial Committee was presided over by the renowned Jesuit named Carlo Maria Martini, Cardinal Archbishop of Milan (the largest Roman Catholic diocese in the world), President of the Council of European Bishops, former Rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, "Rector Magnificus" of the Gregorian University, and regarded by many as "the Pope in Waiting".

Totally false. Martini was not even on the original UBS/Nestle-Aland Committee, and was only added for the third and later editions. Martini *never* presided. Most of the work was done by Metzger and Aland, as is evidenced in the signed notes in the UBS Textual Commentary.

Robert Stewart: "These minority readings, chosen from various sources, had been introduced into the modern UBS/Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament text under the supervision of the most prominent Roman Catholic Greek Scholar in the world."

Ditto as per above. The readings were in the UBS/Nestle-Aland editions decades before Martini was even a member of the committee.

Robert Stewart:"the rare and peculiar readings of a handful of obscure manuscripts, introduced into the new UBS/Nestle-Aland Greek text at the behest of the Vatican,"

More dittos...The Vatican never told the UBS/Nestle-Aland committee diddly as to what to include or not include as either preferred readings or preferred manuscripts, particularly decades before Martini ever sat on the committee.

Robert Stewart: "It is important to note that the modern UBS/Nestle-Aland eclectic text, which forms the basis for most of the modern translations of the New Testament, is also identical to the readings of the New Latin Vulgate authorised by the Pope and issued by the Vatican in 1979."

Really humorous. The so-called "Nova Vulgata" is a deliberate *abandonment* of the traditional Vulgate of Jerome in order to follow the UBS/Nestle-Aland text, to which it was translationally conformed. It didn't happen the other way around, as suggested.

Robert Stewart:"The arch-Jesuit, Carlo Maria Martini, Cardinal Archbishop of Milan, is attempting to succeed where Jerome failed."

Seems like if Martini as the head of such a Jesuit conspiracy as is being alleged, that Jerome's Vulgate should be the entire basis for the UBS/Nestle-Aland Greek text. Yet instead, Jerome's Vulgate loses out in the process.

As the source progresses further, one sees dependence upon Ruckman (no surprise); appeals to the so-called "Secret Gospel of Mark" (which, if not a modern hoax perpetrated by the "discoverer" still has nothing to do with the *real* text of canonical Mark (regardless of texttype)).

To top it off, even when Dr Pickering is cited (and it is Wilbur Pickering, a majority text defender),he nowhere claims in this excerpt that Gnostic readings exist in the Alexandrian or other NT MSS. Nor does this internet article even mention Gnosticism, nor does this article cite even one supposedly "Gnostic" reading in the Alexandrian MSS. So what, Askjo, is your point? And how are you reading into this article quotations and "evidence" that simply isn't there?

Likewise, your other referenced source from "Dr Clinton Branine" (whoever he may be) similarly contains *zero* evidence or proof regarding the claims of Gnosticism in the Alexandrian MSS. nor does he mention even one reading alleged to be Gnostic in those MSS.

Very weak reeds to lean on, Askjo.

Kenny Pearce: "USENET is sometimes a less than reliable resource"

How true, how true....just like the rest of the internet....