Dave that is unfounded pishtosh...he was the disciple of Polycarp a student of John the Apostle...where on earth did you get such a notion? Its sounds like something that the Jesus seminar Q-bots would make up...do you have some source? Thanks
Confession Question
- Thread starter TezriLi
- Start date
- Status
I suspect Dave was meaning to say that St. Irenaeus WASN'T a Gnostic considering he was one of the loudest voices against Gnosticism.
W
Even Polycarp did not believe that The Holy Ghost was God a very gnostic Christian idea.
But it is Irenaeus' insistence on only choosing 4 gospels out of the 12 as four corners of the Earth, four winds and four angels in Ezekiel as well as wanting to keep hidden the knowledge of Revelation that is a big flag that points towards the hidden knowledge aspect of gnosticism.
Works show fruits. These people were no better off than most others of the time. Still feeling their way out. Still drinking Old Wine because it tasted better.
We have to remind ourselves they are ONLY giants because later generations venerated them.
There are many manuscripts of that era that point to his gnostic roots before coming to Polycarp. His city was rife with them and unlike Polycarp studied and took some of their thoughts to him.
Even Polycarp did not believe that The Holy Ghost was God a very gnostic Christian idea.
But it is Irenaeus' insistence on only choosing 4 gospels out of the 12 as four corners of the Earth, four winds and four angels in Ezekiel as well as wanting to keep hidden the knowledge of Revelation that is a big flag that points towards the hidden knowledge aspect of gnosticism.
Works show fruits. These people were no better off than most others of the time. Still feeling their way out. Still drinking Old Wine because it tasted better.
We have to remind ourselves they are ONLY giants because later generations venerated them.
Dave, where are you getting your information? Have you read what St. Irenaeus and St. Polycarp wrote themselves or are you getting information (one might say flawed information) about them through a middle source?
MMurphy
Inactive
Dave, Ireneas was NOT a GNOSTIC, at all. That is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. He hated Gnostics passionately and he curbed the number of Gospels in use in order to create orthodoxy within the Christian Church. In response the Gnostics wrote the Gospel of Judas to shock those who were trying to narrow the theology of Christianity.
Also, I think it is very errenous to say that he was Catholic. The Catholic Church was not nearly in its present form until the Ecumenical Councils began convening. Prior to that it was just the Christian Church (and the word Catholic is just Greek for complete/universal).
Hello, as usual I'm hours behind everyone else so I hope I'm not parroting someone else. The Word tends to tell us that private confession before the Lord Jesus Christ is the way we confess for the vast percentage of the time however, we're also instructed to confess our sins one before the other whether that be a Pastor or a trusted Christian friends. Sometimes when you confess and don't feel peace, it's because the Lord wants you to confess to another so that the Lord may minister to you through that individual. I hope this has added to your thoughts....
Hello, yes you're right, he called it the Epistle of Straw. I've heard others even in our circles who say the book isn't really relevant however the miss the point entirely. James was written earlier than most of the Epistles and it was directed toward the Jewish converts. It was never designed to be full of doctrine and question like Paul's Epistles however when we read, we need to refer to other passages to clarify the Words. Remember, James was the presiding Overseer of the main assembly in Jerusalem and laid the foundation along with the other Apostles of the time, Luther was wrong....
There are many manuscripts of that era that point to his gnostic roots before coming to Polycarp
Please give some sources…
Even Polycarp did not believe that The Holy Ghost was God a very gnostic Christian idea.
Please give some sources (even one!)…
But it is Irenaeus' insistence on only choosing 4 gospels out of the 12
In the early church these four (Matthew, Mark, Luke and finally John) were the ONLY 4 considered true and genuine…all others were apocryphal, or else gnostic distortions from the 2nd century (who penned the names of Apostles on them…like the false gnostic Gospel of Thomas)…you have been misinformed and it sounds like you are listening to the anti-Biblical rhetoric of the modernist liberal scholars…the early apocryphal gospels di however contain some truth and express some of the traditions/beliefs of some of the early local bodies
Common Dave...where did you get this stuff???
Please give some sources…
Even Polycarp did not believe that The Holy Ghost was God a very gnostic Christian idea.
Please give some sources (even one!)…
But it is Irenaeus' insistence on only choosing 4 gospels out of the 12
In the early church these four (Matthew, Mark, Luke and finally John) were the ONLY 4 considered true and genuine…all others were apocryphal, or else gnostic distortions from the 2nd century (who penned the names of Apostles on them…like the false gnostic Gospel of Thomas)…you have been misinformed and it sounds like you are listening to the anti-Biblical rhetoric of the modernist liberal scholars…the early apocryphal gospels di however contain some truth and express some of the traditions/beliefs of some of the early local bodies
Common Dave...where did you get this stuff???
I have to agree with Brother Paul.
There was a reason why the New Testament is what it is today. Either you accept that those who canonized the NT were truly being lead by the Holy Spirit in finding which books were God-breathed OR don't accept it and believe the NT is flawed -- either lacking something that should be there or includes something that shouldn't.
I love the apostle Thomas, but I have to accept that his epistle was not truly written by direct influence of God.
There was a reason why the New Testament is what it is today. Either you accept that those who canonized the NT were truly being lead by the Holy Spirit in finding which books were God-breathed OR don't accept it and believe the NT is flawed -- either lacking something that should be there or includes something that shouldn't.
I love the apostle Thomas, but I have to accept that his epistle was not truly written by direct influence of God.
In fact this gnostic distortion was not written by Thomas at all...they knew about in the 2nd century when it was written and called it a false gospel then...
MMurphy
Inactive
I agree with this. I find it hard to accept the biblical canon without accepting the guidance of those who canonized it.
Indeed. Gnosticism dates back at least to that era since Irenaeus was in the 2nd century and wrote of its flaws.
Although if you're also saying that Thomas was by no means a gnostic, TOTALLY -- considering he was the first person recorded to have ever called Jesus God
Besides, he had been with Christ (in the heavenly realm) for over a century...
Speaking off subject for a moment, I actually feel slightly bad for St. Thomas -- he will never live down the time he doubted. But the thing he is never remembered for is being the first guy to take a leap of faith in calling Jesus "My God." That's one of the reasons why I admire him so much.
Me three!
- Status