(March 9, 2015 at 3:39 pm)TimOneill Wrote: No, gnosticism seems to have been a later, second century development.
Not according to the Bible.
Quote:1st John 4:1-3 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
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.
2nd John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Apparently the Docetics were such a problem as to warrant not one but two condemnations in what became canonized in scripture.
It makes more sense that the various gnostic sects came first. I can see why a vague notion of Jesus was later talked about in urban legends. It makes no sense that devoted followers of Jesus, who had lived within recent history, decided to make up a fantasy that he only existed in a spiritual realm.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
