What's in a name? At the time that the current definition of "Christian" was being narrowed down to a single sect, there were many groups that had legitimate title to the name. In fact, they had even more legitimacy than the orthodox.

What is the true meaning of "Christian?" Does it mean someone who follows the lead of Christ? Or, does it mean someone who follows the lead of a small circle of power players more closely related to the pharisees than to Christ?

To those who don't know the truth, it appears to be a form of historical revisionism.

What's in a name?

Good question, "Sophia". How one answers it says about that person's view of the universe and reality.

At the time that the current definition of "Christian" was being narrowed down to a single sect, there were many groups that had legitimate title to the name.

The term "Christian" first appears in Acts 11:26, which is conservatively dated about 50-60AD; and which even the most "liberal" (there's an inversion -- nothing "liberal" at all about their stinginess, here!) scholars date before 100AD.

Gnosticism, on the other hand, seems to have developed, most charitably, around the middle of the second century. Theologically, as you should know, it is VERY different than the beliefs found expressed in the earlier biblical texts. YHWH is a good guy / YHWH is an evil demon. Different.

And Paul had clearly taught that matter was basicly good, because God had made it, in contradiction to core Gnostic doctrine:

They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving... (1 Tim 4:3-4)

But hey. To one who is desparate, none of this means a group of outliers -- who came a century later and contradicted these existing writings -- shouldn't be entitled to attempt to lay legitimate claim to that tradition.

And why not? John Spong's doing the same thing, and claiming the same name, for doctrine's he's invented 2000 years later. When you're in that kind of mood, intellectual consistency (nor honesty in labelling) is no barrier to rheotric.

Like I said, the answer to the question "What's in a name?" says a lot about a person.

In fact, they had even more legitimacy than the orthodox.

Really! Do tell. "More legitimate" in what sense?

We've already addressed the point about theological consistency. It's not rocket science to notice the huge, gaping differences there -- but I'm sure some brilliant and highly-motivated individuals could convince themselves otherwise.

I trust you're not one of them.

So perhaps you'd like to claim larger numbers as a basis for "legimacy"? Good luck, and don't dig too deeply into that one!

Critics of the "orthodox" like to claim these movements were highly popular, and were only destroyed because they were banned in the fourth century. But as far as I can see, that appears to be wishful thinking: Gnosticism was already nearly dead under the weight of its own inefficiencies.

If you take the time to read the Gnostic "gospels" it's easy to see why this is so: Gnosticism was a highly idiosyncratic, individualist, elitist movement of holier-than-thous who claimed to be the only "enlightened" ones in the universe. Indeed, mass membership would have seriously damaged the psychological appeal it held for its members: It's hard to view your as elite your boat is full of the dregs of society!

Or will you argue they were "more legitimate" because they claimed to hold secret doctrines, allegedly secretly passed down from Jesus and his original followers? Wow, talk about taking your beliefs on faith!

The problem for Gnostics was that there were many witnesses to what Jesus and the disciples had done said publicly. Thus, Gnostic leaders had to claim to know "secret" things, done and said in private, passed on by secret tradition or obtained from spiritual insight.

"Really: Trust me on this. I got it from Mantes, who got it from Lycidas, who heard it firsthand from Orteus, who -- and I swear I'm not making this up -- got it from Peter himself."

:-)

What is the true meaning of "Christian?" Does it mean someone who follows the lead of Christ? Or, does it mean someone who follows the lead of a small circle of power players more closely related to the pharisees than to Christ?

Funny that you should mention that point.

The main division between Christ and the Pharisees involved how to interpret the existing religious texts they already had.

Okay, I'm a bit confused about gnosticism and it's relation to Christianity. If you've studied this, then perhaps you can clarify;

1. I've heard that 'gnosticism' is somthing of a catch-all description. I.E. there weren't a bunch of people with a coherant set of beliefs describing themselves as "gnostics". Rather, gnosticism refered to a style of religious belief, similar to the way that 'heresy' referes to a type of belief rather than a codified doctrine. Is this off base? Weren't there different types of "gnosticism" that had very little to do with one another?

2. Why does the gospel of John seem to make a reference to the vesica pisces/ichthykairos and why is that same symbol adopted as a Christian symbol?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesica_piscis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_of_153_fish

I only bring this up because you said; Gnosticism, on the other hand, seems to have developed, most charitably, around the middle of the second century.

I could be totally misguided since I've only made a cursory study of the subject but perhaps what originated at that time was a an attempt to mix pre-exitsting Gnostic beliefs into the narrative of Jesus? There were similar attempts to mix gnosticsm with Judiasm and perhaps other faiths as well.

The fact that Christianity still uses this gnostic symbol (the vesica pisces) surprises me. Perhaps it's supposed to be "reclaimed" or converted, the same way that pagan demigods or gods became saints and that makes it okay?

So is, um, Satanism considered a "branch of Christianity"?

Lol. Interesting question. It certainly draws on a lot of Christian mythology, but is inverse in its intent. Is there a word for that?

"The Gnostics were eastern mystics who taught that the physical realm is intrinsically evil and that the spirit can be freed from its bondage to physicality through the attainment of secret knowledge (or "gnosis"). They rejected the Christian doctrine of creation (saying that the material world is evil). They denied the incarnation (saying that Christ was a spiritual being who brought the secret knowledge and denying that He became "flesh"). And they denied the redemption (saying that sin is not a moral failure—since what we do in the flesh does not affect our spirits—but simply a lack of spiritual knowledge)."

This is a rather flimsy straw man and in no way reflects the reality of historical Gnsosticism (which rejected neither the material world or the Incarnation). There is much confusion in the above summation of Gnosticism with Manichaeanism. This summation is just not supported by Gn scripture.

Here's a more solid definition:

http://egina2.blogspot.com/2006/07/litmus-test-20-beta-three-point-plane.html

also, here's Ten Things About Gnosticism:

http://egina.blogspot.com/2006/04/10-things-religious-pundits-need-to.html

"Satanists don't claim all flesh is evil, for example, but share the Christian view it is good."

Really? The "Christian" view is that the flesh is good? Could it possibly be as simple as Paul's single comment that Creation is good? Could scripture have any conflicting opinions on the matter? I think you're committing an error first of all in assuming all Christianity adheres to one set of doctrine and second of all in buying into one of St Irenaeus' polemic cliches.

"Do not love the world or the things of the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, sensual lust, enticement for the eyes, and a pretentious life, is not from the Father but is from the world."
- 1 John 2:15-16

"And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness."
- 1 John 5:19

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."
- John 6:63

"The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."
- John 7:7

"For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing"
- Romans 7:18

"I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."
- Romans 7:25

"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live."
- Romans 8:13

"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."
- Romans 12:2

"Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father"
- Galatians 1:4

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness"
- Galatians 5:19

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
- Ephesians 6:12

"Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God."
- James 4:4

The cliche that "Gnostics hate the world, but Christians love the world" doesn't really check out in scripture. The world-hatred far outweighs a positive attitude toward the world in the New Testament. I am fairly certain this anti-Gnostic cliche is a patristic attack-tactic rather than a real difference. I'm sure if you examine the Nag Hammadi Library better you can dig up some better slander.

In fact, in light of the above (and there's so much more, but I've only so much time), maybe if a Christian espouses that the world is good, they're departing more from Christianity than either Gnostics or Satanists! Just my two cents, letting Paul and John speak for me. Hell, I'm inclined to say that if it ain't world-hatin', it ain't Christian!

This conversation was redirected to other posts (and I stopped paying attention to this original thread), but for the record, "to mikron therion" is making a good point: Paul does refer to something called "the flesh" which is often characterized as evil.

Could it possibly be as simple as Paul's single comment that Creation is good? Could scripture have any conflicting opinions on the matter?

Scripture has a nuanced view on the matter. Though many things in the world, and the present world-system itself are treated as evil, matter is not at all viewed as inherantly evil.

Read Genesis 1 and count the number of times it says "it was good" regarding each created thing. Paul and other New Testament writers certainly read that and agreed -- and not in a mere "single instance", as you assert. But even that single instance should alert you to a larger trend.

"In the beginning was the Word [Logos, Truth], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... Through him all things were made... In him was life, and that life was the light of men... We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1)

The world was made by Jesus, who was good and did only good things.

Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

"The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'

"'An enemy did this,' he replied. (Matt 13:24-28)

Again, the farmer sowed good seed in a field (referring to the world, and the people therein) but bad things grew up too, because an enemy was allowed to interfere. There's nothing inherantly evil in this story about the sowed seed, nor the field. Evil entered when the project was warped by an enemy.

"Likewise every good tree bears good fruit..." (Jesus, Matt 7:17)

"The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him..." (Jesus, Matt 12:35)

"What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' ... out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.'" (Jesus, Matt 15:11-20)

"For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." (Paul, Eph 2:10)

"For by him [Jesus] all things were created... all things were created by him and for him." (Paul, Col 1:16)

It is not that flesh is inherantly evil, but that it has been corrupted by human choice:

... sin entered the world through one man [Adam], and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men... For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! (Rom 5:12-15)

If the creation itself was corrupt, and always had been, Paul could not say sin "entered" the world. But the fact he writes this implies he believed there was a time -- before sin "entered", of course -- when the world did not know sin.

Sorry for the long list of references, but I can think of no other way to show this view -- creation was good, but the present order has become warped -- isn't derived from a "single comment".

I think you're committing an error first of all in assuming all Christianity adheres to one set of doctrine and second of all in buying into one of St Irenaeus' polemic cliches.

Honestly, I absorbed this view by reading the documents in question -- mostly between the ages of 12 and 17. You can see the quotes above which give me that impression -- one hardly needs to resort to "St. Iranaeus".

Paul and other biblical writers use the terms "the world" and "the flesh" to mean the current spritual rulers of the world, the system they have set up ("the powers of this dark world... the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" - Eph 6:12) and the part of our nature which wants what is contrary to God.

For example, in the verses you quoted...

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world...

John is careful here to define exactly what he means by "the world": He's not referring to matter, but rather "cravings, lust, boasting" etc. -- these are actions and states, not physical things. See also the quote from Jesus above, where Jesus says it the things which come from inside us (craving, lust, boasting) which corrupt us, not the food (created matter) which enters us from outside.

Those things -- those feelings and motivations -- did not come from "the father". And it's interesting that you cite this document, since John also writes, here:

Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. (1 John 4:2-3)

Even in John's time, there were people claiming that since matter was inherantly evil and corrupt, Jesus, who was truly good, could not have had a body made of corrupt "flesh". The very author you just cited writes a warning that such a philosophy "is not from God."

We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one. (1 John 5:19)

Right: Again, like Paul, John believed that though God had created the world (see John 1, quoted above), the one currently controlling it was wicked.

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. (John 6:33)

Right again! "The flesh" -- the things we do in the body, by our own effort -- don't count with God. Read the whole context of John 6, if you think I'm kidding: the crowds want Jesus to set up a socialist system where they're guaranteed "bread" every day. He's trying to get the to focus on the importance of things of the spirit (his words, his sacrifice) not of the flesh (their need for food).

These things aren't bad ("your heavenly Father knows you need them" - Luke 12:30), but Jesus is carefully pointing out "they count for nothing" with God. I agree completely. We need, his flesh and his blood, which, he explained in the previous verses, meant: "He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty." (v. 35) "Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life... The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." (v 27,29)

Indeed, if "flesh" itself were evil, how could Jesus be offering his own as good? (Though, of course from context, you can see he's really offering a metaphor in both uses.)

This isn't especially hard to understand. You just have to read the surrounding context, rather than focus on the fact that the word "flesh" is used once somewhere in the passage.

The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil. (John 7:7)

Again, what the world does (currently) is evil. It doesn't mean the matter which composes the earth is evil. He clearly says the current set of behaviors, which Jesus here calls 'the world', is evil.

I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature [or "flesh"]. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. (Roman 7:18)

Indeed: what our bodies want is contrary to what the spirit wants. Paul says this constantly, and Jesus says the same. But again, please consult Paul's own explanation (above) as to how this came about: Not because these things were inherantly bad, but because sin entered though the choice of one man. Same applies to the other verses you're cited from Romans 7 & 8.

I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God... Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Romans 12:1-2

Interesting choice! Our bodies, when not conformed to this world, can indeed be "pleasing" and "holy" "living sacrifices" to God. If the issue was the matter of which they were composed, how could a good God accept them?

Answer: It is the "pattern of this world" which is the problem, to which we must not "conform". Not the matter of which it the world is made, but the manner in which it usually behaves. We please God though non-conformity.

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father... (Gal 1:3-4)

Right! Again, it is this "present age" (the current order of things, the current regime) which is evil, not the matter from which the world is made.

This isn't really all that hard. You just have pay attention. (And use a translation that most people today, including you, will understand.)

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (Eph 6:12)

Right! Did you even read this before you quoted it? Paul is clearly saying that our struggle is NOT against "flesh and blood". Our primary problem are the "rulers" of this place, who are "spiritual forces of evil."

For trying to undermine my case, you seem to be making it pretty well. I think that's enough to get the point across -- the remaining verses can all be answered similarly. As Paul just said, our main struggle is NOT really all about flesh and blood per se. It's about how it's behaving, and who's running it, with what intention.

In fact, in light of the above (and there's so much more, but I've only so much time), maybe if a Christian espouses that the world is good, they're departing more from Christianity than either Gnostics or Satanists!

In light of the above? In light of the above, I'd say you need to look more closely at what you're quoting, be alert for metaphors, and use a translation written in the dialect you're used to speaking.

But back to your question: If the hypothetical Christian in question means that the world-system -- the way the world is run -- is good, then certainly, I'd agree with you. But if they mean the matter itself was not created as good? You produced not a single verse which confirmed such a view, and many to the contrary.

Sorry this has been so long -- it's hard to refute a dozen or more errors succinctly. But, hey, nice try, and thanks for playing! Come back again any time: I mean it sincerely.