Podcasts about cerinthus

Subjected to more criticism than any other book now incorporated in the New Testament, the Apocalypse -- popularly accredited to St. John the Divine -- is by far the most important but least understood of the Gnostic Christian writings. Though Justin Martyr declared the Book of Revelation to have been written by "John, one of Christ's apostles," its authorship was disputed as early as the second century after Christ. In the third century these contentions became acute and even Dionysius of Alexandria and Eusebius attacked the Johannine theory, declaring that both the Book of Revelation and the Gospel according to St. John were written by one Cerinthus, who borrowed the name of the great apostle the better to foist his own doctrines upon the Christians. Later Jerome questioned the authorship of the Apocalypse and during the Reformation his objections were revived by Luther and Erasmus. The once generally accepted notion that the Book of Revelation was the actual record of a "mystical experience" occurring to St. John while that seer was an exile in the Isle of Parmos is now regarded with disfavor by more critical scholars. Other explanations have therefore been advanced to account for the symbolism permeating the volume and the original motive for its writing. The more reasonable of these theories may be summed up as follows: First, upon the weight of evidence furnished by its own contents the Book of Revelation may well be pronounced a pagan writing -- one of the sacred books of the Eleusinian or Phrygian Mysteries. As a corollary, the real author of a work setting forth the profundities of Egyptian and Greek mysticism must have been an initiate himself and consequently obligated to write only in the symbolic language of the Mysteries. Second, it is possible that the Book of Revelation was written to reconcile the seeming discrepancies between the early Christian and pagan religious philosophies. When the zealots of the primitive Christian Church sought to Christianize pagandom, the pagan initiates retorted with a powerful effort to paganize Christianity. The Christians failed but the pagans succeeded. With the decline of paganism the initiated pagan hierophants transferred their base of operations to the new vehicle of primitive Christianity, adopting the symbols of the new cult to conceal those eternal verities which are ever the priceless possession of the wise. 

Why did St. John (the Apostle) storm out of the bath house? And, what does that have to do with the message of the gospel? May God bless you as you engage in worship. Please feel free to leave feedback/comments to let us know you joined in worship. If you’d like to contribute to the ongoing ministry of Two Rivers Community Church of the Nazarene please use this link: paypal.com/us/fundraiser/charity/64291

Verhalen over wonderbaarlijke verwekkingen en geboorten werden verteld over heersers en filosofen in historische tijden. Van de filosofen werd gezegd dat Pythagoras de nakomeling was van Apollo en de menselijke Pythais, de mooiste van de Samiërs; Plato zou de zoon zijn van Apollo en Amphictione; Apollonius van Tyana zou de zoon zijn van Proteus, een godheid van Egypte, of Zeus.Er waren twee belangrijke redenen waarom de Ouden spraken over wonderbaarlijke verwekkingen en goddelijke afstamming. Het was zeker een poging om de superioriteit van een individu ten opzichte van andere stervelingen te verklaren. Over het algemeen keken mediterrane volkeren naar iemands geboorte of afstamming om iemands karakter en gedrag te verklaren. In Plutarch's "Romulus" wordt Remus voor straf voor Numitor gebracht. Wanneer Numitor Remus ziet, is hij "verbaasd over de buitengewone grootheid van het lichaam en de kracht van de jongeling, en aan zijn gezicht te zien hoe onverzettelijk en vitaal zijn psyche was ondanks de huidige omstandigheden, en te horen dat zijn werken en daden overeenkwamen met zijn uiterlijk, ... vroeg hij wie hij was en wat de omstandigheden van zijn geboorte waren." Geboorte verklaart latere daden en karakter. In het Evangelie van Marcus, waarvan de meeste schriftgeleerden denken dat het eerder was dan dat van Matteüs en Lucas, ontbreekt een geboorteverhaal. Het begint met Johannes de Doper en met Jezus als volwassene. Sommige christenen geloofden dat hun relatie met God afhing van hun initiatief en acceptabele prestaties, zodat God goedkeurend zou reageren. De laat tweede-eeuwse kerkvader Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.26, spreekt over ene Cerinthus (laat eerste eeuw) die geloofdeJezus werd niet uit een maagd geboren, maar was de zoon van Jozef en Maria volgens de gebruikelijke wijze van verwekking. Omdat hij rechtvaardiger, verstandiger en wijzer was dan andere mensen, daalde de Christus na zijn doop op hem neer in de gedaante van een duif. Daarna predikte hij de onbekende Vader en verrichtte wonderen.Het evangelie van Marcus, zonder een wonderbaarlijk geboorteverhaal, was vatbaar voor een dergelijke interpretatie van een verdienstelijke Jezus die door God wordt beloond. Als Jezus het model voor christenen is, dan moeten zij ook verdienstelijk zijn. Sinds Paulus was dit in ieder geval niet wat de reguliere christenen geloofden. De relatie met God was gebaseerd op Gods genadige initiatief waarop mensen in vertrouwen en gehoorzaamheid (d.w.z. geloof) reageerden. Als men geloofde dat de mogelijkheid van wonderbaarlijke conceptie of geboorte in het algemeen waar was, dan kon een werkelijk superieur persoon alleen verklaard worden door een goddelijke oorsprong. Verschillende voorbeelden maken dit duidelijk. Dionysius van Halicarnassus, in zijn verslag van de verkrachting van de maagd Ilia in het aan Mars gewijde bos, laat de verkrachter na de gebeurtenis tegen de maagd zeggen dat ze niet moest treuren omdat ze "uit haar verkrachting twee zonen zou baren wiens daden alle andere zouden overtreffen. Een goddelijke verwekking leidt tot superieure daden!Toen Matteüs en Lucas geboorteverhalen met een wonderbaarlijke ontvangenis toevoegden als onderdeel van hun herschrijving van Marcus, zeiden ze dat dit soort leven alleen voortgebracht kan worden door Gods voorafgaande genadige, scheppende daad. Als dat zo is voor Jezus, dan geldt dat ook voor zijn volgelingen. De traditie van wonderbaarlijke verwekkingen en geboorten wordt zo opnieuw gedefinieerd in de christelijk-joodse context. De Grieks-Romeinse overtuiging dat de superioriteit van een mens alleen verklaard kan worden door een goddelijke scheppingsdaad, wordt gebruikt om de vooringenomenheid van goddelijke genade in de goddelijk-menselijke relatie vast te stellen. Dit is wat een auditor uit de oudheid te horen zou hebben gekregen.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/koinonia-bijbelstudie-live--595091/support.

Sean Finnegan and I talk about the Kingdom of God. We mention Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria, Plato, Plato, Plato, Plotinus, Porphyry, Irenaeus of Lyon, Cerinthus, St. Anthony of the Desert, Tertullian, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and many more. Sean's book: https://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Journe... Restitutio Podcast: https://restitutio.org/get-podcast/ Living Hope International: https://lhim.org/

Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts For centuries heresy hunters have labeled those who deny the pre-existence of Jesus "adoptionists." This ancient category was based on the idea some Christian groups denied the virgin birth, thinking instead that Jesus became the son of God at his baptism when God adopted him. Modern scholars such as Bart Ehrman and Michael Bird employ this term to describe several early unitarian Christian groups. My guest today is Dr. Jeremiah Coogan, a scholar of the New Testament and early Christianity. He's written a really helpful journal article analyzing the early so-called adoptionist groups. His conclusion? None of them actually qualifies as adoptionists. https://youtu.be/zPL25MPwvbM —— Links —— Read Jeremiah Coogan's article here Visit Professor Coogan's faculty page More episodes on adoptionism See also my class on early church history Get the transcript of this episode Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here —— Interview Questions —— - Today I'm interviewing Dr. Jeremiah Coogan. He is the Assistant Professor of NT at the Jesuit School of Theology. He has a PhD from Notre Dame in Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity. Welcome to Restitutio, I'm so glad to talk with you today.- Today we're talking about your article "Rethinking Adoptionism: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category," published in the Scottish Journal of Theology early this year. In this article you argue that the label of adoptionism is a problematic anachronism. To make sure everyone is up to speed on this issue, could you briefly describe what adoptionism is?- Describe the problem with modern scholars retrojecting Nicene controversies into earlier Christian history.- You argue that though there may have existed adoptionists somewhere in the ante-Nicene period, we have no evidence for them. What about Cerinthus?- Let's talk about the Ebionites? Weren't they adoptionists?- Do you think there's a connection between the Christian community of James in Jerusalem and the Ebionites?- What about Theodotus? He and his followers are often cited as adoptionists, but they affirmed the virginal conception of Christ, right? - Let's move on to Paul of Samosata. I see you cited Paul Sample. I got a hold of his dissertation from Northwestern a little while ago and was impressed to see he had collected and translated so many sources about Paul. What do you make of Paul of Samosata's christology?- So your conclusion after analyzing the evidence is that none of these authors were adoptionists? Why then, do you think scholars for so long have clung to this category? Do you think it was a delegitimizing tactic? Oh, they're not real Christians since they deny what Matthew and Luke say about the virgin birth…- What I look for in a source is virgin birth. If I find that, I know that the group can't hold adoptionism. - Let's talk about early high christology. You steered clear of it in your article, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts?- Have you had any feedback on your paper? - What are you working on now? - How can people find out more about you?- Thanks for talking with me today.

Is 1 John written to combat the heresies of Cerinthus, the heretic of the late first century CE? This week's episode examines the arguments in favor of 1 John being written against Cerinthus and his followers--those who taught that the human Jesus was a different person from the divine Christ who descended upon Jesus as his baptism, only to separate from him right before his death. After hearing the scholarly arguments favoring Cerinthian opponents of 1 John, we listen to the arguments against this historical reconstruction. Ultimately, you the listener can decide which side makes the most convincing case. Please consider supporting this Podcast and future projects by donating at: https://www.paypal.me/10mintruthtalks             To view the notes from this episode please click the link below: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iJ0MGM5jv0wZzQn5SUpAbIryR42x3rOJPV1ePC3zxr0/edit?usp=sharing     Check out some of my videos on YouTube at: https://www.youtube.com/@BiblicalUnitarianPodcast             Follow us on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/OneGodPodcast 

Fr. Stephen DeYoung is an Eastern Orthodox Priest at Archangel Gabriel Orthodox Church in Lafayette, Louisiana. He is also the author of multiple books and the host of the "Lord of Spirits" podcast and the "Whole Counsel of God" podcast. We mention Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Cerinthus, Moby Dick, The Ascension of Isaiah, Beau Branson, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Palamas, Maximus the Confessor, Aristotle, Augustine of Hippo, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Michael Servetus, William Ellery Channing, and many more. Religion of the Apostles - https://www.amazon.com/Religion-Apostles-Orthodox-Christianity-Century-ebook/dp/B0947BRDGS?ref_=ast_author_mpb Our First Conversation - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMVBmpN8c7c&t=8312s My Presentation at the UCA - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsKU9YRS8KI

This is part 6 of the Early Church History class. In the latter half of the second century, two kinds of Christians arose to defend the faith. On the one hand, apologists wrote defenses of Christianity directed at the Roman government. They responded to rumors, arguing that Christians were decent people who should be shown toleration. On the other hand, heresy hunters (or heresiologists) began to combat Christian groups that diverged significantly from apostolic Christianity, such as the Gnostics, Valentinians, and Marcionites. Today we'll briefly overview this fascinating period of Christianity when persuasion not coercion was the means to defeat one's opponents. Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43mIuUVqCK0&list=PLN9jFDsS3QV2lk3B0I7Pa77hfwKJm1SRI&index=6 —— Links —— More Restitutio resources on Christian history More classes here Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here —— Notes —— Apologists (Defenders) of the 2nd C. - Quadratus (130?)- Aristo of Pella (c. 140?)- Aristides (c. 145)- Miltiades (c. 160-180?)- Justin Martyr (d. 165)- Athenagoras (c. 170-180)- Melito of Sardis (c. 170-180?)- Appolinaris of Hierapolis (170-180)- Tatian (d. 180?)- Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180-185)- Epistle of Diognetus (150-225) Quadratus of Athens (130) - addressed book to Hadrian (r. 117-138)- claimed to know people healed by Jesus Epistle of Diognetus (150-225) - author ideas: Hippolytus, Aristides, Pantaenus- common criticisms are that Christians are incestuous b/c we call each other brother and sister, cannibals b/c we eat body and blood of Jesus, atheists b/c we didn't believe in the gods, politically subversive b/c we didn't honor the emperor by offering incense to his statue- Diog. 5.1-17 provides an excellent example of an effective apologist Justin Martyr (100-165) - Stoic -> Peripatetic -> Pythagorean -> Platonist -> Christian- founded a school in Rome- claimed Greek philosophers accessed truth of the Logos, thus Christianity is not a novel religion- Justin addressed his case to the Roman emperor and his sons and the senate and the Roman people (First Apology 1.1-2)- Dialogue with Trypho employed the idea of heresy as defined by a key belief—resurrection (see chapter 80) Heresy Hunters - Justin (140-160)- Irenaeus (180-199)- Tertullian (200-213)- Hippolytus (200-230)- Eusebius (324)- Epiphanius (374-377)- Theodoret (452-453) Standard Arguments - too complicated- trace beliefs to heresiarch- unnatural interpretation of scripture- can't trace beliefs back to the apostles- perverted truth leads to perverted morals- new generations recycle old heresies Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202)- Argued against Valentinus, Marcus, Ptolemaeus, Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, Cerinthus, Ebionites, Nicolaitans, Cerdo, Marcion, Tatian, the Encratites, Orphites, Sethians, Cainites, and others- Against Heresies (aka. The Refutation and Overthrow of Falsely Called Gnosis) intended to equip church leaders to protect their unsuspecting flock from getting tricked into believing any forms of Gnosticism Review - Apologists focused on defending Christianity against outsiders by writing to the Roman authorities and laying out a case for toleration.- Justin Martyr taught that Christianity had continuity with Greek philosophers who also accessed the Logos.- Heresy hunters (heresiologists) defended Christianity against insiders who had differing beliefs from theirs.- Christians fought heresy by using key beliefs they knew their opponents couldn't affirm and by labelling them.- Justin and Irenaeus emphasized resurrection and an ultimate kingdom on earth to exclude those who held varieties of Gnostic beliefs.

Outline:IntroductionJohn and the AntichristThe Antichrist in the Last HourAntichrist(s)Antichrist TeachingsThe Early Fathers' WarContemporary AntichristsWho is I Am?Saint Athanasius ChurchContra Mundum SwaggerVideo Version

To the Church in Ephesus Revelation 2:1-7 by William Klock The first church to which John is instructed to write is the church in Ephesus.  John's attention must have been captured when he heard Jesus say that name.  According to tradition, John was for many years the bishop of the church in Ephesus. If you were to travel to Ephesus today you'd find only a ruin—an impressive ruin, but nevertheless, just a ruin.  In John's day it was already an ancient city and the most important in the province of Asia.  It was a hub of trade, culture, and politics situated on an important harbour.  Ephesus now sits about six kilometres inland.  Deforestation and agricultural activities led to the silting up of the harbour.  The harbour was dredged repeatedly in ancient times.  But there was no stopping the inevitable and as the seaport declined, Ephesus shrank into a small village and, by the Fifteenth Century, ceased to exist entirely. But in the First Century, Ephesus was a bustling city with as many as a quarter million people—one of the largest cities in the world and the largest in Asia.  From the busy port, Harbour Street made its way through the city, ending at an impressive theatre.  Along the way a traveller would pass the public library, the gymnasium, bathhouses, the market, and the public brothel.  But Ephesus' real claim to fame was its Temple of Artemis, one of the seven wonders of the world.  The local form of Artemis was a fertility goddess and protectress of the city.  Her statue was kept decorated with symbols of fertility and on her head she wore a mural crown, representing her guardianship of the city walls.  We don't know much about the specifics of her cult in Ephesus, but it's safe to assume it involved all the usual perversions associated with fertility cults in the ancient world.  Ephesus was a city of art and science and commerce, but it was also a city of idolatry and witchcraft and perversion—all done in the open.  Christianity has had such a sanctifying influence on Western Civilisation that even knowing the perversions of our own decadent, post-Christian era, it's very difficult for us to really understand what life was like in the pagan world of the Greeks and Romans.  But there, in the midst of that idolatry and perversion, holding high the light of Jesus in the surrounding darkness, was a church. And Jesus speaks to the Christians in Ephesus.  Look at Revelation 2:1. “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: ‘The words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands.   We don't know how large the church in Ephesus was at this time, but however large it may have been, these people were a tiny minority living in a morass of paganism.  Even without overt persecution, in standing for Jesus, they stood in opposition to everything around them.  And so Jesus reminds them from the outset: “I'm the one who holds the seven stars in his right hand and I'm the one who walks in the midst of the lampstands.”  We saw this imagery in last Sunday's passage from Chapter 1.  The lampstands represent these seven churches and the stars their “angels”.  There are differing ideas on what exactly is meant by “angels”, possibly heavenly beings with some kind of oversight of the churches, but more likely they're the presbyters or bishops of these churches.  And Jesus begins by reminding them that he holds them in his hands.  He sustains the “angels” and, like the high priest tending the lampstand in the tabernacle, he stands in the midst of the churches and tends to them that their light not go out.  It's an image of reassurance.  These brothers and sisters have been called to be light in the darkness and Jesus reminds them that they do not do so alone and that they do not do so on their own power.  He sustains them. Do you remember what I said last Sunday?  Revelation is about three things.  It's about tribulation and it's about kingdom and it's about perseverance.  On account of the testimony of Jesus, on account of the good news that he is Lord, the Church will face tribulation.  The gods and kings of this present age will oppose the Lordship of Jesus and the spread of his kingdom.  But Revelation also assures the Church that the kingdom is now.  By his death, resurrection, and ascension Jesus has inaugurated his kingdom and he will reign until he has put every enemy under his feet, which means his people can face tribulation with faith and hope.  That also means that Jesus expects his people to persevere.  We do not walk an easy path, but we know where we're headed and he assures us that he walks the path with us.  Jesus' words remind us of the Lord's promise to Israel in Leviticus 26:11-12: I will make my dwelling among you, and my soul shall not abhor you.  And I will walk among you and will be your God, and you shall be my people. He who has died to make us his own will not abandon us to the darkness.  He who has called us make disciples of the nations will surely prosper our work. Now, having reminded them that he is the one who sustains them, Jesus moves on to the heart of his message for the Ephesians.  Look at verses 2-7. “‘I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false.  I know you are enduring patiently and bearing up for my name's sake, and you have not grown weary.  But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first.  Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.  Yet this you have: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.  He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.'   Jesus gives them great praise coupled with a serious rebuke.  On the positive side, he praises these saints for toil and their patient endurance.  If we look at the Greek words that Jesus uses we get a deeper sense of what he's getting at.  The toil he's talking about is the sort of toil that wears one to the bone, the sort of blood-sweat-and-tears toil that leaves you ready to drop to the ground when it's over.  We don't know the specific details of their situation, but to follow Jesus has truly cost the Ephesians and Jesus knows it.  Second, they've not only toiled long and hard, but they've patiently endured.  This isn't a hide-until-it's-over kind of patience.  This is a stand-your-ground-and-defend-the-walls-until-the-reinforcements-arrive kind of endurance.  This is the endurance of people who fight an awful battle, confident of the outcome.  Christ has died.  Christ is risen.  And because of both of those truths, they knew that Christ will come again and they lived and fought and ministered and preached accordingly. Jesus does mention two specific things that have been part of the Ephesians' battle.  First, in verse 2 he praises them because they “cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false”.  Second, in verse 6, Jesus praises them saying, “you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.”  The sense we get here and elsewhere in Scripture is that the Ephesians were people who took both doctrine and practise very seriously.  It's worth noting that in his letter to them, Paul didn't have to take them to task over these sorts of matters.  Paul warned them in Acts 20: Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.  I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.  Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears.   The Ephesians took Paul's warning and exhortation to them seriously and stayed on the alert.  About forty years after John wrote Revelation, Ignatius wrote to them, praising them for their zeal for gospel truth: “Truth is the rule of life for all of you, and heresy has no foothold among you. The fact is, you have nothing more to learn from anyone, since you listen to Jesus Christ who speaks truthfully…. I have heard of certain persons from elsewhere passing through, whose doctrine was bad. These you did not permit to sow their seed among you; you stopped your ears, so as not to receive the seed sown by them…[You are] Christ-bearers and bearers of holiness, with the commandments of Jesus Christ for festal attire.” (Ephesians 6:2, 9:1, 2) False apostles showed up in Ephesus and the church, weighing their teaching against what they had been taught, turned them out and refused to listen.  Specifically, at the time of writing, they've been resisting the teachings of the Nicolaitans.  We don't know a lot about this group.  Irenaeus says they were followers of Nicolas of Antioch, one of the first seven deacons, but one who went wrong.  This false teaching comes up three times in these letters to the churches.  In verse 14, as Jesus speaks to the church in Pergamum, he refers to a group called the “Balaamites”, whose teachings were the same.  Jesus warns the church at Pergamum that these people, like Balaam in the Old Testament, enticed God's people to eat food sacrificed to idols and to engage in sexual immorality.  Both of those things are noteworthy, because they were part of the short list of things gentile Christians must avoid that the apostles drew up at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. Jesus refers to this heresy a third time in the letter to Thyatira, where he rebukes them for tolerating “Jezebel”, a false prophetess enticing the people into sexual immorality and to eat food offered to idols.  So this heresy was making the rounds of the Asian churches in one form or another and, to their credit, the Ephesians have rejected it entirely.  In contrast, the church at Pergamum has tolerated this heresy amongst some of her members and, worse, the Thyatirans have allowed at least one prominent proponent of this heresy into some sort of leadership or prophetic teaching position. So this is all wonderful.  These brothers and sisters know the gospel and the scriptures and they're well-taught in the faith.  Not only that, they have been faithful in discipline and giving no quarter to false teachers, false doctrines, or sinful practises.  They not only know the wolves when they see them, but they've faithfully fought them off.  But, not everything is wonderful.  Jesus says to them, “I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first.  Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first.” In her zeal for gospel truth in a battle with heretics and false prophets, the Christians at Ephesus had lost their love.  From our perspective it may seem that some of the other seven churches are guilty of greater failures—tolerating a false prophet who promotes sexual immorality, for example—but only two of the churches are actually threatened with destruction for their failings and Ephesus is one of them.  “But we've kept the gospel pure, Jesus!  We've cast out the idolaters and the sexually immoral, Jesus!  We've preserved orthodoxy, Jesus!”  And Jesus responds, “I hate the works and false teaching of the Nicolaitans just as you do and I appreciate your zeal, but where is your love?  Without love you are nothing.” Think of the thirteenth chapter of St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthian Christians: If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.  And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.  If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.   Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.  Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. (1 Corinthians 13:1-7) And Paul finishes a few verses later, writing: So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.  (1 Corinthians 13:13) There's the key.  Even if we've got everything else right, if we lack love, we fail to be the Church.  But what exactly does Jesus mean when he says they've abandoned the love they had at first?  If you read the commentaries, some will say that it's simply love of Jesus.  They're so focused on doctrine, that they've forgotten Jesus.  Others say that their battles with false teachers and apostles have left them inwardly focused and that they've lost the love that had once motivated them to engage in mission, proclaiming the gospel, and caring for people both inside and outside the church.  Others say that the battle for orthodoxy has left them cold, angry, bitter, and suspicious towards others. Brothers and Sisters, from my personal experience living through the “Anglican realignment”, I can't see any reason why Jesus mightn't have all these failures to love in mind.  I have observed that as we hunker down doing battle with apostates, those fights can consume all we've got to the neglect of other critical aspects of ministry.  And, when the fight's over, it can be terribly difficult to stop fighting.  Many in the Anglican Church and the Episcopal Church fought valiantly for the gospel against men and women who held it in contempt and had abandoned the faith.  They fought a life and death ecclesiastical struggle.  And that battle is largely over, a new orthodox province has been established, but some just can't stop fighting.  And after fighting for so long, it's often easy to forget that the smaller battles we now face within our own church are not with the enemy, but with brothers and sisters who love Jesus and are trying to be faithful to Scripture.  They may be wrong on some issues.  And some of those issues are gravely serious: “Three Streams” theology, women's ordination, Critical Theory, language relating to sexual identity.  But these are brothers and sisters, not the enemy.  We need to be zealous for gospel truth, but we also need to be equally zealous to love. We need to pray for wisdom and discernment to know where to draw the lines between friend and enemy and to know how to love in each case—because we are called to love our enemies.  It's not easy.  I struggle with this myself.  I hate going to meetings of the local ministerial because they leave me so discouraged.  There are mainline churches that have forsaken the gospel and that, much as the Nicolaitans, are fine with sexual immorality.  There are churches that have mixed the prosperity heresy with the gospel.  More recently Marxist social theories that are antithetical to the gospel are being promoted.  There are churches that promote false prophets and teachers—not too many years ago we even had a pastor making bogus claims to be an apostle.  And, Brothers and Sisters, it discourages me and it makes me angry.  And I sit there thinking that I'm doing Jesus a disservice being there and pretending that I share the same faith with some of these people—because in some cases I really don't.  And I ask, what do truth and love demand of me here?  How, in my desire to preserve and even fight for gospel truth, do I love the folks who call themselves Christians, but have forsaken the faith.  How do I love the folks whom I know are brothers in Christ, but with whom I have serious disagreements and grave concerns?  I don't always know.  I tend to err on the side of love and then I'm frustrated, because I know that I've sacrificed truth. It's not easy, but it's vital that we be both zealous for truth and love.  If the love is lacking, it becomes a cancer that will destroy the church from the inside out.  A zeal for truth coupled with a lack of love, I've observed, first makes us a very unattractive community, and second, it kills our mission.  We circle the wagons and start shooting at everyone on the outside—and sometimes on the inside, too—and forget that many out there need our gospel ministry.  Jesus warns the Ephesians, “I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.”  Honestly, I'm not sure that such a church actually needs Jesus to come and remove its lampstand.  When we forsake love, we kind of kick over the lampstand ourselves—or like Israel in Jesus' parable, we hide it under a bushel. St. John, I think, had it figured out.  Consider that on the one hand, John was known as a “son of thunder”.  Peter was the “rock”—the apostle who was solid and unmoving.  John—and his brother, James—preached the good news about Jesus with power like thunder.  He took it seriously and he wasn't afraid to speak and act on the truth.  There's a story that has come down through history about John's time in Ephesus.  John entered a local bathhouse only to be informed that the heretic, Cerinthus, was already inside taking a bath.  John ran outside, forgoing his bath, lest he share even a public space with a false teacher. At the same time, this same John is sometimes called the “apostle of love”.  This is the man who wrote to the churches: Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.  Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.  (1 John 4:7-8) A second story that has come down to us from John's time in Ephesus is that as he approached old age, he distilled all of his preaching into a one-sentence sermon that he would frequently repeat, “Little children, love one another.”  John, I think, had an equal zeal for both gospel truth and gospel love.  I don't want to say he found the “balance”, because I don't think it's a matter of balance.  Balance means you end up compromising, giving up some measure of the truth in the name of the love, for example.  What we really need is to learn how to be equally zealous for both, compromising neither. “Hear what the Spirit says to the churches,” Jesus says.  “To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.”  I think the Ephesians thought they had conquered.  They'd fought the good fight against false teaching—and were continuing to fight it—and by all accounts they were winning.  But their vision of obedience to Jesus, their vision of what the Christian life entails had become too narrow.  They'd won the battle on one front, but were losing it badly on another—and weren't even aware of it.  Love is just as important as truth. But to those who do hold the course in faithfulness to Jesus, he promises the tree of life, paradise restored, the life of the age to come lived in the presence of God. Brothers and Sisters, the good news is that the Christians in Ephesus did take Jesus' warning here to heart.  Again, we have that passage from Ignatius' letter to them from some forty years later in which he praises them.  They continued to be zealous for the truth, but he also notes that they are a holy people who wear the commandments of Jesus as their festal attire.  Ephesus remained the centre of Christianity in that part of Asia for many centuries.  Ephesus hosted the Third Ecumenical Council.  The church in Ephesus only ceased to exist, hundreds of years later, because the city itself ceased to exist as its harbour silted up.  But I think it's worth something that while the name “Ephesus” disappeared from the map, the name “Ayasuluk” replaced it in Turkish.  The name comes from the Greek Hagios Theologos, the name of the great basilica built in Ephesus and named after St. John, whom they called “Theologian”.  Not even the name of the city survived the march of the ages, but the name of the church in Ephesus lives on. So Brothers and Sisters, persevere, firm in the knowledge that Jesus holds us in his hands as we walk this difficult path.  But remember, too, that perseverance isn't limited to the sometimes obvious struggles—the ones over doctrinal and practical orthodoxy.  It's true, we cease to be the Church when we fail to uphold those gospel truths.  But remember that love is just as important.  Come to the Table this morning and experience once again who we are as the people of God, set apart to holiness, but set apart by the one who gave his life for us.  The one, who on the cross, shows us not only the importance of love, but also what it looks like.  Little children, love one another. Let's pray: Lord Jesus, in the collect we asked you to grant that we, like John the Baptist, might be faithful ministers and stewards of your mysteries, preparing the way for you by turning the hearts of the disobedient to the wisdom of the just.  We prayed that in doing so, you will find us an acceptable people in your sight.  We ask specifically for zeal for gospel truth and equally for love.  Give us wisdom that we might never compromise one for the other, but stand firmly for both in equal measure.  Amen.

Back in 1963, Marvin Gaye recorded a minor-hit song that became so popular that it was covered at least nine times, including by the Temptations and Lee Michaels, who made it a hit in 1971. The song, “Can I get a Witness.” Today's text immediately brought this chorus to mind…and you'll shortly see why. Today, John finishes his letter to the congregations in modern-day Western Turkey threatened by the false teaching of Cerinthus and his followers. John has spent time and energy, helping those Christians discern who is the true Christian. To wrap up his letter he focuses our attention on three key words: testimony, faith, and to know.

It was the wish of Martin Luther that the Book of Revelation should be omitted from his translation of the Bible. In his opinion, the Apocalypse was of pagan origin, and was not a writing of the beloved John. It was filled with Hermetic inferences and strange allegories which troubled the soul of the great German reformer.Though not greatly learned in comparative religion, Luther sensed the Gnosticism that pervaded the book. He denied the divine inspiration of the entire work, affirming with Erasmus that the Apocalypse had no legitimate place in the Christian scripture. He raised his voice against tradition, but tradition was stronger; and, after his death, the Book of Revelation was restored to the Bible and has remained in its accustomed place ever since.The debate concerning the origin of the Book of Revelation began in the second century. Even the Gospel according to St. John was involved. Dionysius of Alexandria declared that both books had been written by Cerinthus, a Gnostic, who, to add credence to his writings, had appended thereto the name of John. Later, St. Jerome attacked the validity of the Apocalypse, lending to the controversy one of the greatest names in the Church. Jerome insisted that through some machination of the evil one, the devil had introduced his voice into the scripture itself, in an effort to undo the whole labor of Christendom.It must be acknowledged then, that the authorship of the Revelation is extremely uncertain. The claims of the Authorized Version that it was the work of John, while on the Isle of Patmos, may be liberally discounted. It is quite possible that the Cerinthus story is the correct one. If so, the Revelation may be the most important work in the entire New Testament, for the reason that it arose from Gnostic scholarship. From a philosophical standpoint, the Book of Revelation exhibits a wisdom far in excess of the other Testament writings. Here comparative religion is introduced.The great mystery institutions which dignified the past with their initiates find a place in the Apocalypse. The rites of Phrygia, those celebrating the Aged One who walks amidst the lamps; the rites of Osiris wherein is set forth the last judgment; and the rites of the ancient sun-god and the horsemen who ride through the sky; all these, and many others, are to be found set forth in various sections of the Apocalypse.Recent translations of Egyptian manuscripts indicate that in some cases the pre-Christian text has been quoted word for word.Here indeed is the mystery of pagan books, with only the change of an occasional thought or word, wandering into the Christian scriptures, becoming canonical, and remaining century after century unidentified as to their original sources.John was one of the disciples who did not suffer martyrdom. He is believed to have been buried at Ephesus, the city of the Mysteries, near the tomb of the Virgin Mary.John sleeps through the centuries awaiting the return of his Lord. When that great day comes, he will arise and be seated upon the right side of his master. These legends have little regard for history, but are products of the traditional trend in early Christian thought. During this period, fantastic accounts of Christian origins were developed, and these inventions ultimately took on a stature second only to the scriptures themselves.There was a wild confusion of Christian and pagan doctrine. The Greek god Dionysus was canonized, as was also his Roman mode, Bacchus. The pagan mathematician Hypatia, a victim of Christian monks, blossomed forth as St. Catherine of Alexandria. It was not until the end of the Dark Ages that anything resembling reason could be clearly distinguished in the picture. This was no time of critical scholarship.From our present perspective it is reasonably certain that the Apocalypse is a compilation of pagan doctrines with an occasional Christian reference interpolated into the text.Music By Mettaversea return homeuniversal languagea field of onenessthe still point ➤ Listen on Soundcloud: http://bit.ly/2KjGlLI ➤ Follow them on Instagram: http://bit.ly/2JW8BU2 ➤ Join them on Facebook: http://bit.ly/2G1j7G6 ➤ Subscribe to their channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyvjffON2NoUvX5q_TgvVkw All My Neville Goddard Videos In One Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKv1KCSKwOo8kBZsJpp3xvkRwhbXuhg0M For coaching – https://www.advancedsuccessinstitute.com For all episodes of the Reality Revolution – https://www.therealityrevolution.com Like us on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/RealityRevolutionPodcast/ Join our facebook group The Reality Revolution https://www.facebook.com/groups/403122083826082/ Subscribe to my Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOgXHr5S3oF0qetPfqxJfSw Contact us at media@advancedsuccessinsitute.com #lawofattraction #manlyphall #sacredwritings #totalhumanoptimization

Following a short address about the Christian response to the current pandemic sweeping across the world, we look at just five verses from the fifth chapter of John's letter. We examine the doctrine concerning Jesus Christ's nature and also see the necessity of obedience to God if we are to have a proper relationship with him.

Greetings! Welcome to Lechem Panim. In today's passage (1 John 5:1-12) we are going to be talking a lot about assurance; assurance of who Jesus is and assurance of who we are in Him. If You Wake— I recently read a story about [A life insurance agent {who} was speaking with a would-be client. After a long presentation of the risks of not buying the policy, the man was still a bit hesitant. “I feel that you're trying to frighten me into a hasty decision. “Oh, no, I would never do such a thing!” the agent assured him. “I'll tell you what — Sleep on it tonight. If you wake in the morning, give me a call then and let me know your decision.”] If you want assurance, an insurance agent is not always the best choice. However, when it comes to where we are going to spend eternity, the apostle John wants his readers to have absolute assurance. One of the things that makes 1 John such a valuable epistle is that it's aim is to give us personal assurance of our salvation. While in his Gospel, John writes in order that we might “have” eternal life (John 20:20-31), he wrote this epistle so that we might “know” we have eternal life (I John 5:13). He uses the word "know" 39 times in this epistle alone. John wants us to have the assurance and peace that comes from knowing where we stand with God. Do you know where you stand this morning in your relationship with God? Do you have complete assurance of your salvation. John says we can. We can test ourselves in order to know whether or not we are truly children of God. And John gives us three major tests. Belief in Christ— In verse 1 is the first test: What we believe about Jesus. It says: 1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, Both Divine and Human— And as we said before, that involves our believing that Jesus was both fully God and fully man. And as fully God and fully man, He died on the cross for the atonement of our sins and was raised from the dead in order that we also might experience victory over sin and death. So belief in who Jesus claims to be and placing our faith and trust in Him for salvation is how we receive salvation.  Love for God's Children— Now in the second part of verse 1 we are given the second test: and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. If we are truly saved, then we will truly love the Father. And if we love the Father the way we ought to, we will love and care about those He loves and cares about. Now John has made this point before. Remember he records in his Gospel Jesus saying in… John 13:34-35 (ESV)— 34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” Obvious, but Not Easy—  Now we know that we are supposed to love each other; that's obvious. But just because something is obvious doesn't mean it's easy. I think sometimes we forget how difficult this really is. How do we think about that sibling who has wounded us? That person at church who has wounded us? Those people who you run into in life who, when you are down, enjoy kicking you and making you feel small? What about that person at work who always makes your job harder by how they do theirs. In our thought life, how do we view them? Do we love them? Apart from God, that love becomes very difficult; actually impossible. We can never truly love our brother or sister or neighbor until we first love the Father in and through Jesus Christ. Our love for God can enable us to love them because we love them not for their own sakes, but for Christ's sake. And John is very careful to connect the two. We love our brothers and sisters and neighbors by first loving God. If we truly love Him and maintain that relationship, He will perfect the love we have for others. He says in verse 2… 1 John 5:2-3a (ESV)— 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. Obeying God's Commands— And in that verse is contained the third test of genuine Christianity: loving God and obeying his commands. If we truly love God, then we will keep His commands. And more than that, we will want to keep His commands. They will be a joy. As the second part of verse 3 says: And his commandments are not burdensome. Now why are they not burdensome? Because His Law; His commands are not just regulations He comes up with, but are an expression of His very nature and character. And therefore if we truly love Him, we will love His nature and character and therefore as a result will also love His Law and practice His commands. Overcome the World— Now verses 4-5 mark what is perhaps one of the most encouraging passages in scripture. It says… 1 John 5:4-5 (ESV)— 4 For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. 5 Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? Living in Light— Through faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, we can have victory over sin and temptation because we can, as John says, abide by the commands that God has given us. We can live in His light and have victory over the darkness merely because of the fact that we are abiding in the Light of the World and He in us. And if we allow Him, He can expel all darkness in us and also much of the darkness around us as we bring the light of Christ to others. And once again if we truly love Christ, then we will want to do that. Refuting Gnosticism— Now during this time there was a false heresy that was developing that served as the foundation for what would later become Gnosticism. And this was a belief system that denied that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh (1Jn 4:1-3; cf. 2Jn 7). And one of the representatives of this belief system was a man named Cerinthus. And he taught that the divine Christ descended upon Jesus at the time of his baptism and then left him before he died on the cross. And so (they claim) that “Christ' never experienced death. Now WE know that it was necessary that Jesus (as the Christ) die in order to atone (to pay for) the sins of the world. And you cannot be a true Christian without believing in that foundational truth. This is why John has been trying to emphasize throughout this epistle first that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (1 John 4:2) and secondly, those who believe that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh are “of God” and have been “born of God” (1 John 4:2; 5:1a). And in defense of this John presents to us specific witnesses we have concerning the truth that Jesus is the Christ and that he has come in the flesh. 1 John 5:6a (ESV)– 6 This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood.  The Water— Now the "water" refers to Jesus' baptism in the Jordan river, when the Father spoke from heaven and said, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:13–17). And you will remember that after he came up out of the water, the Holy Spirit descended and rested upon him as a dove. And this was one of the means by which the Father testified (audibly from heaven) concerning His Son; right at the beginning of Jesus' ministry. Talk about validation!!! The Blood— Now the second witness is “the blood”. And “the blood” refers to Jesus' death on the cross and the testimony that was born of Jesus as He was hanging there. At the end of Jesus' ministry [the Father gave further witness as the time drew near for Jesus to die. He spoke audibly to Jesus from heaven, and said, “I have both glorified it [My name], and will glorify it again” (John 12:28). Furthermore, the Father witnessed in miracle power when Jesus was on the cross: the supernatural darkness, the earthquake, and the rending of the temple veil (Matt. 27:45, 50–53). No wonder the centurion cried out, “Truly this was the Son of God!” (v. 54) Jesus did not receive “the Christ” at His baptism and lose it at the cross. On both occasions, the Father witnessed to the deity of His Son.] The Spirit— Now “the water and the blood” are not alone in their witness, but are joined by a third witness: The Holy Spirit. It says in… 1 John 5:6b-8 (ESV)– And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.  And so we see that the Holy Spirit is another key witness to the incarnate Christ. And He is certainly a strong witness, for He was heavily involved in every aspect of the earthly life and ministry of Jesus. He was involved in Jesus' conception (Mt 1:20), played an active role in His baptism (Mt 3:16), was with Jesus and led Him during His time of temptation in the wilderness (Lk 4:1), and was upon Him for all of His ministry (Lk 4:18). He also came upon the disciples, sanctifying them and bestowing on them spiritual gifts (Hebrews 2:3-4); and inspiring some of the disciples to author New Testament books and letters. And so the Spirit is a huge witness to who Christ is. And John points out how The Spirit, the water, and the blood, all agree with one another, meaning that they agree in their testimony that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. Now here John continues… 1 John 5:9 (ESV)– 9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son. The Greater Testimony— And this simply means that since in a court of law we receive and accept the witness of men, how much more should we accept the testimony of God. Isn't he greater? Of course. Now for those who have been “born of God”, it says… 1 John 5:10a (ESV)– 10 Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself.  Confirmation in Our Spirit— And what John (and Jesus) is saying is that when we set out hearts and minds on doing the will of God, we will know that the doctrine of Christ is really from God. We will receive confirmation in our spirit regarding who Jesus really is and who we are in Him as born again believers. Now there are those (obviously) who reject the testimony of God. And John says of them…  1 John 5:10b-12 (ESV)– Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. 11 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. And what John is saying is that you cannot have life apart from Jesus. All these witnesses that John is talking about (witnesses to who Christ is) ought to lead us to place our faith in Him as the ONLY source of life there is; and to follow Him with a complete and total commitment of ALL of who we are to Him. When we truly place our faith in Jesus like that, there will be (like John says) that fruit; that evidence in our lives demonstrated in righteousness and love; and we can have assurance that we are indeed children of God. And if you want to experience that deeper relationship with Him today, open your heart to God in prayer and invite Him to begin that work in you. And as it says in… Philippians 1:6b (ESV)— …he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Greetings! Welcome to Lechem Panim. Last week, in our study of 1 John, we talked about what John means by his saying that we are living in the last hour, and what the nature is of the Antichrist who is to come and the many antichrists he says are already in the world. These antichrists (he says) are false teachers who lead people astray by teaching false doctrine; and so we talked about the importance of knowing the Word of God so that we might recognize when somebody (however well-intentioned) might be twisting it. And so we come to verse 19, which we will look at in a moment. Overwhelming Heresies-- But first I must say that for anybody who has ever studied all the various heresies of the church, you know how complicated and confusing many of them can be. And then you have the religious cults like Jehovah's Witness and Mormonism, which are mind-boggling in their complexity and how they subtly take giant leaps away from scripture. Even my uncle, who taught systematic theology for about two decades, said on his radio show that sometimes he has to go back and look at those cults once in a while to remind himself of particular details because of just how complicated some of them can be. But how do you and I best protect ourselves against falling into any of these heresies? Good Theology vs. No Theology-- Now some people say that because bad theology can lead you astray, it's better not to deal with all that theology stuff. But, as a wise person once said, the answer to bad theology isn't no theology, but good theology. It is only good theology that can keep bad knowledge at bay. And that means that you and must be students of the Word.  The Loss of Bible Studies-- But one of the Great victories of Satan in our churches in America today is the loss of the spiritual education of the members of the Church; where they are being taught sound doctrine and how to get in to and study the Word of God for themselves. Therefore, the church in America is largely Biblically illiterate. I remember a conversation with a Christian young man that had grown up in Church. I began talking with him about the book of Ruth and he didn't know who Ruth was. And I remember just how dumbfounded I was. And I want to say that that is why we are seeing more and more sin and heresy entering into the church. The Church is forgetting more and more of God's Word because it is not being taught to our people. And because of that we are becoming more and more vulnerable to the Antichrist who is coming and the antichrists that are already here (as John says here in verse 2). “The Man of Lawlessness” and “The Beast”— Now that is interesting to me because the antichrist is given a different name in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, where he is called "the man of lawlessness”. In other words, he is a man who has disregarded the Law of God. And therefore, the more we know the Law of God; His Word; the more easily we will be able to spot him and other false teachers and protect our churches from falling into sin. Many antichrists— Now (as we have said before) in addition to the Antichrist, John also mentions the "many antichrists” who have already come. And these are false teachers who were leading God's people astray. And John gives us some of their characteristics by which they can be recognized: They Leave— First, we see that they leave the Church. ​1 John 2:19 (ESV)-- 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.  Light & Darkness Mutually Exclusive-- And as we talked about recently light cannot abide with darkness; they are mutually exclusive; one must expel the other. And, in this case we see that these false teachers leave the church. [In John's day they left the church because they had nothing in common with believers (v. 19).] 1 John 2:20-21 (ESV)-- 20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge. 21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth.  They Deny Jesus is the Christ— Secondly, we see that they deny the incarnation (that God became flesh) and that Jesus is the divine Christ. And in that they are revealed to be liars and deceivers. 1 John 2:22-23 (ESV)-- 22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.  The Gnostics— [The antichrists referred to in John's letter were the early Gnostics.] And the fundamental teaching of Gnosticism is that our bodies of flesh and all that is physical, is evil; it is sinful. Only that which is entirely spirit is good. That is why they argue that God is completely good; for the very reason that He is entirely spirit. Now we know this teaching of all flesh being sinful and all that is spiritual being good is false because God created a physical world and called it good and also because Jesus himself had a physical body; but that didn't make Him sinful. Also, what about demons? They are completely spirit and yet could you possibly consider them good? Obviously not. Salvation is the escape from the body by special knowledge— But because of this whole flesh vs. spirit dualism they believe in, they believe that salvation is not a transformation or regeneration of the spirit, but an escape of our spirits (which are good) from our bodies (which, because they are physical, are said to be evil). So [Salvation is the escape from the body, achieved not by faith in Christ but by special knowledge (the Greek word for “knowledge” is gnosis, hence Gnosticism).] And one branch of this heresy (the Epicureans) taught that [since matter—and not the breaking of God's law (1Jn 3:4)—was considered evil, breaking his law was of no moral consequence.] They taught that what is done in the flesh doesn't really matter because the spirit is going to leave the flesh anyway. And that is a teaching that obviously goes against the clear teaching of scripture. Christ's Humanity Denied-- Now we believe that Jesus was both fully God and fully man. However, the Gnostics (because of their belief that flesh was evil and spirit good) found it necessary to deny Jesus' humanity. And they did this in either one of two ways. [(1) Some said that Christ only seemed to have a body, a view called Docetism, from the Greek dokeo (“to seem”), and (2) others said that the divine Christ joined the man Jesus at baptism and left him before he died, a view called Cerinthianism, after its most prominent spokesman, Cerinthus. This view is the background of much of 1 John (see 1:1; 2:22; 4:2-3).] So we can see why John wants to make sure that they hold fast to the foundational doctrine that Jesus was both fully God and fully man, that He became incarnate and remains incarnate, and that He died and rose again. This is why John says in… 1 John 2:24-25 (ESV)-- 24 Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that he made to us—eternal life. The Gnostic Background-- Now we may talk about Gnosticism more as we move through this epistle, but for now we just need to understand that this heresy was in the background of much of the early church and (particularly) this epistle of 1 John. And this will help to shed light on how we interpret certain verses. For example, look at the next one, which can be really confusing if we don't understand the context… 1 John 2:26-27 (ESV)-- 26 I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. 27 But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him. Now this verse says that we do not need teachers or pastors or any form of education? Is that what John is saying? Being a pastor and a teacher, obviously not. You do not need anyone to teach you— … [Since the Bible constantly advocates teaching…, John is not ruling out human teachers. At the time when he wrote, however, Gnostic teachers were insisting that the teaching of the apostles was to be supplemented with the “higher knowledge” that they (the Gnostics) claimed to possess. John's response was that what the readers were taught under the Spirit's ministry through the apostles not only was adequate but was the only reliable truth.] [The teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit (what is commonly called illumination) does not involve revelation of new truth or the explanation of all difficult passages of Scripture to our satisfaction. Rather, it is the development of the capacity to appreciate and appropriate God's truth already revealed—making the Bible meaningful in thought and daily living.] So the Holy Spirit helps you to understand what has already been revealed. And if you ever meet somebody who says they have had a revelation of some new truth, you better watch out for them, because they're lying to you; or are deceived. ​Now what does this all mean for you and for me? It means we have to value truth; know truth; and walk in truth. Well, how do we do that? By getting our theology right? That's part of it. Knowing the Word of God, which means spending time in the Word of God and prayerfully seeking the Holy Spirit's guidance to help you to understand it. But I also want to remind you that truth is not an abstraction. Truth is person. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (Jn 14:6). And therefore if you want a life that makes sense; a life that is solid; it has to begin with a relationship with Jesus and culminate in a constant communion with Him in which He is teaching and growing you into a Christ-filled (and therefore Truth-filled person). And that is why I want to encourage you today to start an ongoing conversation with Him today. Draw near to the He who is the Truth this week. And let Him draw you near to Him. May you commune with Him day by day, hour by hour, and minute by minute. And may He in every way be your solid foundation. Amen.

"Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III.3.4.   John 5 16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.   John 8:58 58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.   John 20:27-29 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” 28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”   John 21 25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.   John 20 30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.   John 21 20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?” ...24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.       Luke 9:52-56 54 When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?” 55 But Jesus turned and rebuked them. 56 Then he and his disciples went to another village.         John 1:1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. 2 οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.   John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.   John 17:5 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.   John 1:3 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

El titulo del episodio de esta semana es “Compra Uno y Llévate Uno Gratis.”En el último episodio  tocamos brevemente un hereje llamado Marción. Fue uno de los primeros en introducir una enseñanza falsa que se convirtió en un gran desafío para la creciente Fe Cristiana; este movimiento errante era conocido como el Gnosticismo.Marción era el hijo del pastor de la iglesia de Ponto, en la costa sur del Mar Negro. Él era propietario de un barco de vela y despachaba carga y pasajeros a lo largo de todo el Imperio. Alrededor del año 140 d.C, el padre de Marción lo expulso de la congregación. Esto fue el resultado de la seducción de una mujer joven por Marción, o sus ideas cada vez más heréticas, o ambos. Cualquiera que sea la razón, el se trasladó a Roma, donde era un desconocido y su reputación era intachable. Cuando hizo una gran contribución a la Iglesia de Roma, eso también ayudo a mover las ruedas de su aceptación como miembro de buena reputación.Pero Marción pronto comenzó a exponer ideas que se apartaban de lo que enseñaban los ancianos de la iglesia. En sus viajes anteriores, Marción había sido influenciado por un maestro llamado Cerdo, uno de los primeros defensores de lo que hoy se conoce como el Gnosticismo.Ahora, permítanme ser claro, el Gnosticismo era más una tendencia religiosa que un movimiento unido con un conjunto de doctrinas centrales. Mientras que los Gnósticos celebró un conjunto creencias básicas comunes, ellos las interpretaban de muchas maneras diferentes. Esto hace difícil describir al Gnosticismo. En general, podemos decir que fue una mezcolanza deFilosofía Griega,Cultos del misterio orientales, yTerminología De la filosofía Griega, los Gnósticos tomaron prestado la idea de que toda la materia física era intrínsecamente e inalterablemente mala, mientras que el reino espiritual fue igualmente, inherentemente & inalterablemente bueno. Del ocultismo y cultos del misterio oriental esotérico tomaron la idea que existía un cuerpo de conocimientos secretos que cuando los entendías te concedían la iluminación. Esta iluminación fue el equivalente Gnóstico de la salvación porque esta iluminación liberaba la conciencia de la mera existencia física a una especie de espiritualidad permanente.El gnosticismo tomó su nombre de esta idea de "salvación a través de la iluminación." La palabra griega "gnosis" significa 'conocimiento'.Porque el movimiento Cristiano estaba creciendo rápidamente, los Gnósticos adoptaron formas y términos Cristianos como una astuta táctica de marketing, esperando a empeñar sus ideas como una forma élite del Cristianismo. La estrategia funcionó y el Gnosticismo se arraigó en varias congregaciones igual que lo hacen los vientos de falsa enseñanza en cada generación.Marción fue uno de los primeros en introducir elementos Gnósticos en su altamente editada forma del cristianismo. Tomando de las enseñanzas de Cerdo, el propuso 2 diferentes dioses; un airado, vengativo la deidad del AT, y una figura cálida, amorosa de padre del NT. Siguiendo la línea Gnóstica, Marción, dijo que el cuerpo físico era malvado y promovió una ascetismo riguroso que negaba todo placer físico. Los seguidores de Marción tomaban la comunión con agua porque el vino era demasiado sabroso. Fueron tan extremos para decir que incluso el sexo dentro del matrimonio era tabú.Marción afirmaba que Jesús no nació de María. El dijo Jesús apareció en Capernaúm en el año 29 d.C. como un hombre adulto. Tengamos en cuenta que = Jesús solamente apareció. Marción decía que Jesús no tenía un cuerpo literal. Él no podía ya tener un cuerpo físico, el cuerpo era malo. Jesús apareció solamente, o parecía tener un cuerpo; en verdad, él era más fantasma que tangible.Esta creencia se le llama Docetismo; una de las primeras formas de Gnosticismo. Docetismo proviene del significado de la palabra parecer. Marción dijo que la muerte y resurrección de Cristo no era literal; no lo podía ser porque Jesús no era corporal. Era sólo un manifestación  fantasmagórica del amor y el sacrificio de Dios. Aunque la Iglesia de Roma rápidamente se dio cuenta de la teología errónea de Marción y declaro sus ideas heréticas en el año 144 d.C. , sus ideas se propagaron y Marción creó una falsa Iglesia en partes de Italia y  Asia Menor donde los cultos de misterio orientales eran populares. Congregaciones Marcionistas llegaron tan lejos como Egipto y Arabia y seguían funcionando hasta el comienzo del siglo IV.Marción fue sólo una de las corrientes del Gnosticismo que se desarrolló durante el segundo y tercer siglos para desafiar a la Ortodoxia Cristiana. La principal característica de todos los Gnósticos era su marcado dualismo, separando lo físico y lo espiritual en reinos totalmente divergentes. Ellos creían que el reino espiritual contenía una jerarquía de seres espirituales que estaban  en diferentes niveles en el camino hacia arriba, hacia un trascendente y supremo Espíritu. Este Dios trascendente habia dado lugar a una deidad inferior, y esa había hecho lo mismo, y así sucesivamente a lo largo de miles de emanaciones espirituales hasta que hubo un espíritu lo suficientemente distante del Espíritu original para ser tan bajo como para ser capaz de crear el universo físico. Algunos gnósticos como Cerdo y Marción, decían que este humilde Espíritu creador fue el Dios judío del Antiguo Testamento.Los Gnósticos creían que chispas de la divinidad, pequeñas porciones de espíritu puro estaban encerrados dentro de algunos, pero no todos, seres humanos. Aquellos que lo tenían, ellos decían, se podían convertir en Gnósticos. Esta era otra ingeniosa táctica de marketing; después de todo, ¿quién no quiere pensar que tienen un poco de chispa de algo especial? Así entonces fueron tentados a ir al gnóstico para demostrar que lo tenían. El siguiente paso era pagarle a uno de los maestros gnósticos la cuota necesaria para aprender la Gnosis, es decir, el conocimiento secreto, lo que podría soplar sobre su chispa divina para convertirla en un fuego ardiente.Voila = Iluminación!Era una antigua versión de, "La primera lección es gratis, pero si quieres ir mas profundo, bueno, eso te va a costar. Oh, y por cierto, si eres inteligente, claro que te vas a unir a nosotros, porque eso es lo que hacen los inteligentes que tienen la chispa divina. Deseas ser uno de los especiales o ¿no? Además, regístrate, paga la inscripción y estás dentro! Ah, y por si fuera poco - si te inscribes hoy, tienes el 50% de descuento."Bueno, obviamente, yo añadí la última parte, pero una vez que te das cuenta como eran los maestros Gnósticos realmente no se sorprenderían si tenían versiones antiguas de todos los trucos de ventas moderna. Planes familiares, Plan Comprar Uno, y Consiga Uno Gratis, Sin gastos de envío.Para los Gnósticos, la Iluminación era igual que la Salvación. Fue la realización que no eran meramente seres humanos carentes de la chispa divina, tan poco mejor que animales. Ellos eran espíritus atados a la tierra destinados a re-emerger en la Jerarquía Divina, esa serie de emanaciones del supremo y trascendente, Dios. El Gnosticismo fue una progresión escalonada de crecimiento espiritual por el cual miembros aumentaban su rango, pagándole a sus guías Gnóstico más y más para aprender cada vez más poderosa Gnosis. Si esto suena parecido a un grupo religioso moderno que se llama a sí mismo un nombre similar = algo parecido, a → Conocimientologia = bueno realmente no hay nada nuevo bajo el sol._________________________________________________________________________________________________________El gnosticismo presentó un desafío a la Iglesia por un par de razones.Primero = Los Gnósticos usaban muchos de los mismos términos que cristianos usaban. Esto confundía a los nuevos cristianos y aquellos que no eran enseñados correctamente. Es algo que hacen las pseudo-sectas cristianas hasta este día. Ellos utilizan vocabulario ortodoxo pero le dan diferentes significados a las palabras..Segundo = Es la naturaleza humana el ser atraído a lo que es secreto, oculto y misterioso; y eso era  el fundamento principal de los Gnósticos.Tercero = Los gnósticos creían que eran superiores a los demás. Este apeló al orgullo en nosotros que siempre esta presente. La Biblia enseña que el hombre fue creado en la imagen de Dios y destinado originalmente para la gloria. Hay un sentimiento latente de un llamado a la gloria que perdura en el alma de todos nosotros. La grandeza nos atrae a todos. Los Gnósticos decían que eso era la chispa divina y sólo ellos podían activarla.Cuarto = La naturaleza humana supone que algo tan importante como la salvación tiene que ser costoso. No hay tal cosa como una comida gratis. El Evangelio Cristiano nos enseña, que aunque la salvación es por la gracia de Dios y es un regalo para nosotros, fue sumamente costoso para Dios porque le costo la vida de Cristo. Pero muchos no entienden esta parte y piensan que la gracia es totalmente gratuita. El mensaje del Evangelio sobre la salvación por gracia parece dudoso y débil para aquellos convencidos que tiene que haber trabajo involucrado en alcanzarlo, comparado con la campaña Gnóstica de "Pagar por Jugar".Lo que viene como una sorpresa es darnos cuenta que el primer real desafío doctrinal al Cristianismo no fue sobre la deidad de Jesús. Fue sobre su humanidad. Hoy en día, la controversia mayor es sobre si Jesús es Dios. Es fácil verlo como un hombre. Lo más difícil es entender cómo lo humano y lo divino se unen en la Encarnación, así que esto se convirtió en uno de los principales puntos de enfrentamiento con los no cristianos y los cultos orientales. El Docetismo de Marción y otros Gnósticos mantenían la divinidad de Jesús, pero negaban su humanidad.Ahora permítanme darles un poco de información adelantada de uno de nuestros episodios futuros al llegar al 4ª y 5ª siglo. Resulta que las batallas en las cuales entró la iglesia de cómo entender la doble naturaleza de Cristo se convirtió en un período de la historia de la Iglesia sangriento y polémico. Uno de los Concilios de la Iglesia le es dado apodo, “el Sínodo gánster“ porque los líderes de la iglesia que asistieron llegaron a golpes sobre esta cuestión. ⇒ momentos divertidos!Regresando al Gnosticismo . . .Otras corrientes del Gnosticismo enseñaban que Jesús y Cristo eran dos entidades separadas. Jesús fue sólo un hombre con una madre humana y padre,  pero Cristo fue un espíritu que descendió sobre el hombre Jesús en Su bautismo, ministró a través de él durante 3 años, luego partió en el Huerto de Getsemaní. Así que el hombre que murió en la cruz fue solo un caparazón gastado; su muerte no logró nada en términos de la salvación. Estos gnósticos creían que el espíritu de Cristo o la conciencia de Cristo continuaba habitando en la vida de sus líderes y podía venir a quienes mostraban suficiente iluminación.Como Marción con su lista abreviada de los libros aprobados de la Biblia, que consideramos en el episodio anterior, los gnósticos editaban porciones del NT y quitaban todo los que hablaba de Cristo en el mundo físico. Él no podía haber escrito en el polvo de la tierra o haber comido después de la resurrección, porque bueno, los espíritus no hacen ese tipo de cosas. También tenían que insertar episodios en la historia de Jesús, que daban una apertura para su teología aberrante. La reciente oleada de Evangelios alternativos que han salido en las noticias son en la mayoría escrituras Gnósticas conocidas por la primera iglesia, pero rechazadas por su origen agregado y dudoso propósito gnóstico. No fueron incluidos en el canon del NT porque no cumplían con los criterios que se utilizaban para validar los escritos aceptados del Canon Bíblico.Como he mencionado, hubo varias ramas o corrientes del Gnosticismo. Eran diferentes en todo tipo de formas. Una de las principales divisiones era en torno de cómo tratar con el núcleo de sus creencias sobre la maldad intrínseca en todas las cosas. Un grupo creía que la manera correcta de responder era teniendo un estricto ascetismo que evitara el placer físico. Sólo comían más alimentos sin mucho sabor, bebían bebidas insípidas, vestían ropas incómodas, se abstenían de sexo y evitaban cualquier tipo de estimulación de los sentidos que se consideraban placenteros.El otro grupo era una cambio de 180° del ascetismo. Estos gnósticos se sumergían en el placer físico. Decían que el ascetismo era inútil, pues si era placentera o no, el contacto con el mundo era inalterablemente malo- así que no importaba! Si estaba todo mal, quizás era bueno disfrutar de ella! Estos gnósticos hicieron su objetivo sumergirse en el placer, y esto muchas veces significaba caer en todo tipo de inmoralidad. Ellos pensaban experimentar la iluminación de todos modos, y esto demostraría que su conciencia estaba divorciada de su cuerpo. Estos gnósticos decían que su chispa divina era como una perla que no podía ser manchada por el lodo del mundo. Por supuesto, esto era bastante atractivo para personas que deseaban continuar en pecado y creer que iban al cielo cuando morían.En medio de estos dos extremos, encontramos las otras corrientes del pensamiento y enseñanza Gnóstica._________________________________________________________________________________________________________Hasta el siglo 19,  la mayoría de lo que sabíamos acerca de los Gnósticos venia de los líderes Cristianos como Ireneo y Orígenes que refutaban sus ideas.Esto es lo que el Padre de la Primera Iglesia, Ireneo, escribió acerca de los Gnósticos en el prólogo de su trabajo; "Contra las Herejías".“Estos hombres falsifican los oráculos de Dios, y demuestran ser mal intérpretes de la buena palabra de la revelación. También derrocan la fe de muchos, arrastrandolos lejos, bajo pretexto de conocimiento superior, de El que redondeo y adorno el universo; como si tuvieran algo más excelente y sublime para revelar, que el Dios que creó el cielo y la tierra, y todas las cosas en él. Por medio de palabras engañosas, ellos astutamente seducen los de mentes simples para investigar su sistema; pero ellos no obstante los destruyen torpemente, mientras los inician en sus blasfemas e impías opiniones . . . Y estos simples son incapaces, incluso en estas cosas, de distinguir la mentira de la verdad.”_________________________________________________________________________________________________________Como les habia dicho, hasta hace poco, casi todos lo que los historiadores sabían sobre el Gnosticismo antiguo, fue lo que los que se oponían decían acerca de ellos. Pero despues, hace varias décadas, los antiguos manuscritos Gnósticos comenzaron a salir a la superficie. Los más notables son el Codex Askewianus, el Evangelio de María Magdalena, La Sabiduría de Jesús, y los Actos de Pedro. En 1946, una colección de manuscritos gnósticos fue descubierta cerca de Nag Hammadi en Egipto. Les dieron una fecha de haber sido escritos a finales del siglo 4.Simon Magus, mencionado en Hechos 8, fue catalogado por los primeros cristianos como el iniciador del Gnosticismo y, de hecho, pudo haber tenido una mano en la mezcla la filosofía griega, los misterios oriental, y el lenguaje cristiano en un espiritualismo hecho en casa. Después de Simón, otro maestro gnóstico llamado Menander le dio seguimiento y elaboro sobre el trabajo Simón. Saturninus trajo el gnosticismo a Antioquía de Siria, donde una floreciente comunidad Cristiana ya existía.Cerinthus propago el Gnosticismo en Asia menor y, como hemos visto Cerdo & Marción trajeron las ideas Gnósticas a Roma.Donde el Gnosticismo prosperó fue en la ciudad de Alejandría en África del Norte, la segunda más grande del Imperio Romano y una ciudad muy influyente. Alejandría era un centro de cultura y aprendizaje y la presencia allí del Gnosticismo avanzo considerablemente su alcance.Las condiciones áridas del norte de África también facilitaron la preservación de documentos, por lo que algunos de nuestros manuscritos más antiguos del NT provienen de esa región. Algunos eruditos conservadores creen que estos manuscritos aportan evidencias de manipulación gnóstica porque tienden a excluir a las porciones de los Evangelios que hacen referencia a la existencia  de Jesús corporal, así como aquellas partes las epístolas del NT que hablan sobre la vida de fe que afecta al mundo físico.Pero el resultado neto del Gnosticismo en la Iglesia fue en aclarar lo que los Cristianos creían acerca de la humanidad y deidad de Cristo y la naturaleza de la fe. Desafíos Gnósticos movieron a los líderes de la Iglesia a determinar qué libros eran Escritura y también que eran las doctrinas esenciales. Aunque la causa de la ortodoxia fue avanzada por confrontar las ideas del Gnosticismo. Las ideas gnósticas se arraigaron en algunas iglesias y a principios del siglo 4, cuando el cristianismo fue finalmente liberado de la persecución del Imperio, los líderes de la iglesia se dividieron sobre algunas de las ideas que el Gnosticismo había insertado en la iglesia.Pero ese es un asunto para un episodio futuro.

Sometimes it's hard to imagine biblical figures living lives outside of what we read in the Bible. What was Peter's home life like? Did he ever get sick? Well, we do have some stories that tell us a bit about the early Christians. Polycarp, for example, tells an interesting story about John the Apostle and someone named Cerinthus. And Polycarp himself had a similar encounter with Marcion, one of the arch-heretics of Christian church. Here is the story.

In this lesson we will look at who Cerinthus was and also look at the Word of Life.

In this blast from the past, J. Warner continues to examine the ancient non-canonical writings to see what they say about Jesus. In this episode, J. Warner examines the Gospel of Basilides, the (Greek) Gospel of the Egyptians, the Gospel of Cerinthus, the Dialogue of the Saviour, the Gospel of Mary, the Trimorphic Protennoia, the Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit, the Apocryphon of John, the Gospel of the Savior, the Second Apocalypse of James, and the Gospel of Marcion. Are these documents alternate eyewitness accounts? Do they express the truth about Jesus, lost over the centuries? Are there any good reasons for us to accept what they say about Jesus? Is there anything TRUE we can learn from them?

Have The Christ Myth by Arthur Drews (1910) and Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions by TW Doane (1882) been superceded? Where have all the Deists gone? Do the numerous Moses-Jesus parallels imply that Moses was already viewed as a Messiah? Irenaeus in his Against Heresies (III,11.1) says, "John, the disciple of the Lord, preaches this faith, and seeks, by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men..." What he is saying here is that John was written after to refute Cerinthus which is one smoking gun for the late date of John. There are scholars before and now that contend that it is the case and that John was the judaized and historicized version of Cerinthus' gospel. Are there any scholarly attempts to reconstruct the Cerinthus gospel just like scholars before and now have reconstructed Marcion's gospel of the lord which is being called as the "ur-lukas"? Can we consider the Cerinthus gospel as an "ur-john"? If 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 is not an interpolation, does it really back up the gospelsâ?? Easter stories? The listed appearances sound more like visions, while the rest of the chapter seems to understand the resurrection of Jesus as spiritual rather than physical. Is Mark 16:9-20 more Marcionite or Gnostic? Are the â??hate your familyâ?? passages in the gospels a reflection of the period when the Early Church Fathers are battling the heresies of Gnosticism? Reading the apocryphal "Life of John the Baptist" text recently, I noticed a present-tense reference to Theophilus, who identified as being in office. Is this the same Theophilus mention in Luke, eh? Is it reasonable to suggest that the Passion narratives are not meant to implicate and condemn Jews but rather to say that all humanity must be depraved if even the best of them, Jews, could be so blind to the truth? Iâ??m curious to hear what you might have to say about Lena Einhornâ??s new book, â??A Shift In Time: How Historical Documents Reveal the Surprising Truth about Jesusâ??? Are there links between the NT passages and Isaiah 65, which mentions eating unclean pigs and living in tombs? Is there a correlation between one not being able to look at the face of God and not being able to stare directly at the sun? Is the Deuteronomic prohibition of cross-dressing the product of the ancient Israelite taxonomies discussed by Mary Douglas?

Consider Irenaeus’ statement in Against Heresies concerning the rule of truth. There are key themes that will be covered on the topic of heresies. One is the relationship of Creation, God, and Humankind. Another theme is the relationship of the God of the Old Testament and God of the New Testament. There is also the theme of the relationship of Jesus, God, and Humankind. Lastly, there is the theme on the view of textual authority (“scripture”). Explore who the Ebionites were. Irenaeus stated, “Cerinthus, again, a man who was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by the primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him, and at a distance from that Principality who is supreme over the universe, and ignorant of him who is above all. He represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men. Moreover, after his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being. Those who are called the Ebionites Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.” The Ebionites believed the world was made by a “lesser God,” Christ is impassible, and Christ and Jesus are distinct. They only accepted and used the Gospel of Matthew – it fit into their Judaistic tendencies.

We finally wind down the first century with the last days of the Apostle John. The next generation of Christians must take up the challenge of confronting heresy, schism, and persecution after the Apostles are all gone. Music “Sons of Constantinople” by Tyler Cunningham, licensed under Pond5. HistoryoftheEarlyChurch.wordpress.com HistoryoftheEarlyChurch@gmail.com Facebook.com/EarlyChurchPodcast

This week's episode is titled “Buy One, Get One Free.”In the last episode we touched briefly at a heretic named Marcion. He was one of the first to introduce a false teaching that would evolve into a major challenge to the emerging Christian Faith; that errant movement was known as Gnosticism.Marcion was the son of the pastor of the church in Pontus, on the Southern coast of the Black Sea. He was a ship-owner sailing passengers & shipping cargo throughout the Empire. Around AD 140, Marcion's father disfellowshipped him from the congregation. This was the result either of Marcion's seduction of a young woman, his increasingly heretical ideas, or both. Whatever the reason, he relocated to Rome where he was unknown & his reputation was untarnished. When he made a large contribution to the church at Rome, it greased the wheels of his acceptance as a member in good standing.But Marcion soon began espousing ideas that diverged from what the elders taught. In his previous travels, Marcion had been influenced by a teacher named Cerdo, an early advocate of what today is known as Gnosticism.Now, let me be clear, Gnosticism was more a religious trend than a united movement with a settled set of doctrines. While Gnostics held a common set of core beliefs, they interpreted them widely. This makes describing Gnosticism difficult. Generally, we can say it was a mash-up of àGreek philosophy,Eastern mystery cults, andChristian terminology. From Greek philosophy, Gnostics borrowed the idea that all physical matter was inherently an unalterably evil, while the spiritual realm was equally, inherently & unalterably good. From esoteric & occult Eastern mystery sects they took the idea there was a secret body of knowledge that when understood granted enlightenment. This enlightenment was the Gnostic equivalent of salvation because it liberated one's consciousness from mere physical existence into a kind of permanent spirituality.Gnosticism took its name from this idea of “salvation thru enlightenment.” The Greek word ‘gnosis' means ‘knowledge.'Because the Christian movement was growing rapidly, Gnostics adopted Christian forms & terms as a sneaky marketing ploy, hoping to pawn off their ideas as an elite form of Christianity. The ploy worked & Gnosticism took root in several congregations just as winds of false teaching do in every generation.Marcion was one of the first to introduce Gnostic elements in his highly-edited form of Christianity. Drawing from Cerdo, he proposed 2 different gods; an angry, vengeful OT deity, & a warm, fuzzy father-figure of the NT. Toting the Gnostic line, Marcion said the physical body was evil & promoted a rigorous asceticism that denied all physical pleasure. Marcion's followers took communion by drinking water because wine was too tasty. They went so far as to say even marital sex was taboo.Marcion claimed Jesus was not born of Mary. He said Jesus appeared at Capernaum in AD 29 as a grown man. Note that = Jesus only appeared. Marcion said Jesus didn't have a literal body. He couldn't since being physical, the body was evil. Jesus only appeared, or seemed to have a body; in truth, he was more phantom than tangible.This is called Docetism; one of the earliest forms of Gnosticism. Docetism comes from the word meaning to seem. Marcion said the death & resurrection of Christ weren't literal; they couldn't be since Jesus wasn't corporeal. They were just a phantom demonstration of God's love and sacrifice. Though the church at Rome quickly became hip to Marcion's theological shenanigans & declared his ideas heretical in 144, they gained some traction and Marcion set up a counterfeit church in both Italy & in Asia Minor where the Eastern mystery cults were popular.  Marcionite fellowships reached as far as Arabia & Egypt & were still operating well into the 4th Century.Marcion's was only one of several streams of Gnosticism that developed during the 2nd & 3rd Centuries to challenge Christian orthodoxy. The main feature of all the Gnostics was their sharp dualism, splitting up the physical & spiritual into utterly divergent realms. They believed the spiritual realm contained a hierarchy of spiritual beings who were layered upward toward a transcendent & ultimate spirit. This transcendent god had given rise to a lower deity, which had done likewise, & so on over thousands of spiritual emanations until there was a spirit distant enough from the origin to be so low as to be able to create the physical universe. Some Gnostics like Cerdo & Marcion, said this lowly creator spirit was the Jewish God of the OT.Gnostics believed that sparks of divinity, little portions of pure spirit were locked inside some, but not all, humans. Those who had them, they said, would become Gnostics. Another clever marketing ploy; after all, who doesn't want to think they have a little spark of something special? So, they were tempted to go Gnostic to prove they did. The next step was to pay one of the Gnostic teachers the requisite fee to learn the Gnosis, that is, the secret knowledge, so they could have their divine spark fanned into full flame.Voilà = Enlightenment!It was an ancient version of, “The first lesson is free, but if you want to go deeper, well, that's going to cost you. Oh, & by the way, if you're smart, you WILL join us – because that's what smart holders of the divine spark do. You want to be one of the special one's don't you? Well, sign up, pay the fee & you're in! Oh and BTW – if you sign up today, it's half off.”Okay, I obviously made that last part up, but once you realize what the Gnostic teachers were all about, you wouldn't' really be surprised if they did have ancient versions of all the modern sales gimmicks. Family & group plans, Buy One; Get One Free, No Shipping.For the Gnostics, Enlightenment equaled Salvation. It was the realization they weren't mere humans devoid of the divine spark, so little better than animals. They were earth-bound spirits destined to re-emerge with the divine hierarchy, that series of emanations from the supreme, transcendent God. Gnosticism was a stepped progression of spiritual growth whereby members increased their rank by paying their Gnostic guides more & more to learn increasingly powerful gnosis. If this sounds similar to a modern religious group that calls itself by a similar name = Something like, uhhh à Knowledgeology = Well there really is nothing new under the sun.Gnosticism presented a challenge to the Church for a couple of reasons.First = Gnostics used many of the same terms Christians used. This confused novices and those not properly taught. It's something pseudo-christian cults do to this day. They use orthodox vocabulary but pour different meanings into the words.Second = It's human nature to be attracted to that which is secret, hidden & mysterious; and that's what the Gnostics were all about.Third = The Gnostics believed they were superior to others. This appealed to ever-present pride. The Bible teaches that humans were created in the image of God & originally destined for glory. There's a latent sense of a call to glory that lingers in the soul. Greatness beckons us all. Gnostics said this was the divine spark & only they could activate it.Fourth = Human nature assumes something as important as salvation has to be costly. There's no such thing as a free-lunch. The Christian Gospel says while salvation is by God's grace & free to us, it's supremely costly to God because it cost the Life of Christ. But many miss this & think grace is utterly free.  The Gospel's message of salvation by grace seemed thin & weak to those convinced there had to be work involved, compared to the Gnostic campaign of "Pay to Play."What comes as a surprise is to realize the first real doctrinal challenge to Christianity was not over Jesus' deity. It was over His humanity. Today, most controversy is over Jesus being God. It's easy to see Him as a man. What's more difficult is to understand how the human and divine come together in the Incarnation, so this becomes one of the main points of contention with non-Christian and the cults. The Docetism of Marcion and other Gnostics maintained Jesus's divinity but denied his humanity.And let me just give a bit of a teaser for some of our later episodes when we get to the 4th & 5th Centuries. Turns out the battles that went on in the church over how to understand the dual nature of Christ became a bloody & contentious period of Church history. One of the Church Councils is nick-named the Gangster Synod because the church leaders who attended it beat each other up over this issue. è Fun times!Back to Gnosticism . . .Other branches of the Gnostics taught Jesus & Christ were 2 separate entities. Jesus was just a man with a human mother & father while Christ was a spirit that descended on the man Jesus at his baptism, ministered thru him for 3 yrs, then departed in the Garden of Gethsemane. So the man that died on the cross was just a spent shell; his death accomplished nothing in terms of salvation. These Gnostics claimed that the Christ-spirit or Christ-consciousness continued to inhabit their leaders & could come upon anyone who showed sufficient enlightenment.Like Marcion with his abbreviated list of approved books we considered in the previous episode, the Gnostics edited portions of the NT that spoke of Christ's physicality. They couldn't have Him writing in the dust of the ground or eating after the resurrection because, well, spirits don't do those kinds of things. They also had to insert episodes into the Jesus-story that gave an opening for their aberrant theology. The recent spate of alternative Gospels that have made the news are for the most part Gnostic Scriptures known to the early church but rejected for their spurious origin and dubious Gnostic purpose. They weren't included in the NT canon because they didn't meet the strenuous criteria used to validate accepted writings.As I mentioned, there were several branches or streams of Gnosticism. They differed in all sorts of ways. One of the major divisions was on how to deal with their core-belief in the inherent evil of all matter. One group believed the proper way to respond was by a strict asceticism that avoided physical pleasure. They ate only the most bland foods , drank tasteless beverages, wore uncomfortable clothes, abstained from sex & avoided any stimulation of the senses deemed pleasurable.The other tendency was a 180° reversal of asceticism. These Gnostics immersed themselves in physical pleasure. They said asceticism was pointless because whether it was pleasurable or not, contact with the world was unalterably evil – so it didn't matter! If it was all evil, might was well enjoy it! These Gnostics made it their aim to so immerse themselves in pleasure, and this often meant indulging in the grossest kinds of immorality, that they'd experience enlightenment anyway, and this would prove that their consciousness was divorced from the body. These Gnostics said their divine spark was like a pearl that could not be stained by the muck of the world. Of course, this was quite appealing to people who wanted to continue in sin and believe they were going to heaven when they died.Spread between these extremes, were other branches of Gnostic thought & teaching.Until the 19th Century most of what we know about the Gnostics came from Christian leaders like Irenaeus & Origen who refuted their ideas.Here's what the Early Church Father, Irenaeus, wrote about the Gnostics in his preface to his work; “Against Heresies.”These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation. They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretense of superior knowledge, from Him who rounded and adorned the universe; as if they had something more excellent and sublime to reveal, than God who created the heaven and the earth, and all things therein. By means of specious words, they cunningly allure the simple-minded to inquire into their system; but they nevertheless clumsily destroy them, while they initiate them into their blasphemous and impious opinions . . . and these simple ones are unable, even in such a matter, to distinguish falsehood from truth.As I said, until recently, pretty much all historians knew of ancient Gnosticism was what it's opponents said about it. Then, several decades ago, ancient Gnostic manuscripts began to surface. The more notable of these are the Codex Askewianus, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, the Wisdom of Jesus, & the Acts of Peter. In 1946, a collection of Gnostic manuscripts was discovered near Nag Hammadi in Egypt. They were dated to the late 4th Century.Simon Magus, mentioned in Acts 8, was labeled by early Christians as the originator of Gnosticism and may indeed have had a hand in blending Greek philosophy, Eastern mysteries, & Christian lingo into a home-spun spiritualism. After Simon, another Gnostic teacher named Menander followed up on & elaborated on Simon's work. Saturninus brought Gnosticism to Antioch in Syria where a thriving Christian community already existed.Cerinthus spread Gnosticism in Asia Minor & as we've seen Cerdo & Marcion brought Gnostic ideas to Rome.Where Gnosticism thrived was in the North African city of Alexandria, the Roman Empire's 2nd largest & a highly-influential city. Alexandria was a center of culture & learning & Gnosticism's presence there greatly advanced its reach.The arid conditions of North Africa facilitated the preservation of documents, so some of our most ancient manuscripts of the NT come from that region. Some conservative scholars believe these manuscripts bear evidence of Gnostic tampering in that they tend to exclude portions of the Gospels that reference Jesus' corporeal existence, as well as those parts of the NT epistles which speak of the life of Faith affecting the physical world.But the net result of Gnosticism on the Church was the clarification of what Christians believe about the humanity and deity of Christ & the nature of faith. Gnostic challenges moved Church leaders to identify which books were Scripture as well as what makes for  essential doctrine. Though the cause of orthodoxy was advanced by confronting Gnosticism, Gnostic ideas became entrenched in some churches and by the early 4th Century, when Christianity was finally removed from under the heel of Imperial persecution, Church leaders were split over some of the ideas Gnosticism had inserted.But that's a matter for a latter episode.

This 63rd episode is titled InvestedWe've just concluded a series on medieval monasticism and return to the narrative of the Church during the Middle Ages in Europe.Before we do, let's remember the story of Church History is much bigger than just what happened in Europe. Until recently, church history spent most its time on the Western Church and only touched other places as it related TO the Western narrative. We're trying to broaden our horizons, although it's tough because the source material for the history of the Church beyond the Western realm is much slimmer. It isn't that there isn't any; there's quite a bit; but it's not presented in the popular format that commends a layman's format. And an historical layman is certainly what I am So it's thick wading through most of it.With that said – back to the Church in the European Middle Ages . . .We have several themes and topics to develop. It's going to take a few episodes to do so. The first we'll look at, because it ends up being a recurring problem, is what's called the Investiture Controversy.This was a theological and political dustup that came about as a result of the fusion of Church and State in Feudal Europe. Church officials had both religious and secular roles. Though they weren't part of the official nobility, they did hold positions in the very strict social structure of the Feudal system. Serfs didn't just work the lands of the nobility. Many of them worked church lands and holdings. So, many bishops and abbots not only oversaw ecclesiastical duties, they were secular rulers. You can imagine how these clerics were torn in their loyalty between the Pope far off in Rome, and the much closer secular feudal lord; whether a duke, earl, count, or baron, to say nothing of the emerging kings of Europe.When the Roman Empire dissolved in the West, the role and responsibility of civil government often fell to church officials. Most people wanted them to step in. So when feudalism took hold, it wasn't a difficult transition for these religious leaders to be invested with the duties of secular rule.Because bishops, abbots and other church officials had secular as well as spiritual authority, many of Europe's nobility began to take it upon themselves to appoint those bishops and abbots when vacancies occurred. It's not difficult to see why they'd want to, instead of waiting on Rome to make the selection. Local rulers wanted someone running things amiable to their aims. Also, with the inheritance rules the way they were, with everything going to the firstborn son, a lucrative and influential career as a bishop was a plum job for all those second and third sons.  This investing of church offices by secular rulers was called Lay Investiture, because it was done by the laity, rather than by ordained clergy. And as you can imagine, it was NOT something Popes were happy about.Though the details are different today, imagine you're a church member for thirty years. One day your pastor says he's retiring. You expect your denomination or elders to pick a new pastor. How surprised would you be to find out the local mayor picked your pastor? Oh, and by the way; if you squawk about it, the Police will arrest and toss you in jail till you learn to shut your yap and go along with the new arrangement. è Welcome to lay investiture.While Rome for the most part opposed lay investiture, because administrating the Church all over Europe was a monumental task, for centuries the Popes begrudgingly consented to allow secular rulers to assist in the appointment of church officials. Some of these appointments were wise and provided good and godly men to lead the Church in their domain. Other times, nepotism and crass pragmatism saw, at the best inept and at the worst, corrupt officials installed.The issue became a controversy when the Popes decided to reign things in and required that church officials be appointed by the Church itself. Secular rulers were no longer allowed to do so. But just because the Popes said “No” to lay investiture, didn't mean secular rulers stopped. And that's where the brueha kicked in.It came to a head in 1076 when Pope Gregory VII and the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV came to a loggerheads over the archbishop of Milan. Both men proposed different candidates, and both believed it was his right to appoint the office. The Pope threatened excommunication if the Emperor refused to comply. Henry answered by calling a synod of German bishops at Worms in 1076. The Synod deposed Pope Gregory. Not to be outdone, Gregory excommunicated Henry and absolved his subjects of allegiance to him. A deft move—since at the time, Henry and his Saxon nobles were at odds. These nobles then demanded Henry reconcile with Gregory within a year or forfeit his throne. So the Emperor was forced to make peace with Gregory in a famous meeting at Canossa. Henry demonstrated his contrition by walking around the castle for 3 days in the snow, barefoot! The Pope reversed the excommunication and received the Emperor back into the faith.That's the end of the story – a happy one, right? Not quite.Henry leveraged his return to favor into a campaign against the Pope. He marched on Rome and set up a new Pope. Gregory died in exile. Still, Pope Gregory's position on investiture eventually prevailed.In 1099, Pope Urban II decreed that anyone who either gave or received lay investiture was excommunicated. In 1105 a moderate compromise was reached at Bec and ratified in a Council at Westminster two yrs later.Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV was followed by, can you guess? Yep; Henry V. It was during his reign the papacy ultimately won the investiture struggle. At Worms in 1122, a Concordat was drawn up in which the Emperor agreed The Church could elect bishops and abbots and invest them with their office. Although elections were to be held in the presence of the king, he was prohibited from influencing the decision by simony or the threat of violence. While it was the Church who selected her clergy, it was the secular rulers who handed them the symbols of their authority in the form of a crozier and a ring, representing their role as Shepherd of God's flock and that they were married to the Church. By allowing secular rulers a hand in the bestowal of the symbols of office, it conveyed the idea of the bishop's duty to support the secular ruler.The political intrigues that flowed from this dual loyalty of church officials across Europe is a thing of legend; literally! I'm guessing most listeners have seen at least one movie that captures the intrigues that ruled the political and religious scene at this time.Despite the Concordat of Worms in 1122, there were a few of Europe's nobles who continued to practice lay investiture. And there were plenty of their appointees willing to go along with them because they were being appointed to some pretty cushy posts. But eventually, lay investiture was set aside as feudal society gave way to the modern world.We round out this episode with a review of an aberrant doctrine that kept resurfacing in the Church of both the East and West. It was an attempt to understand the Person of Christ.Adoptionism had an early origin, being advocated by the Ebionites in the 2nd C. The famous Gnostic heresiarch Cerinthus taught a form of adoptionism.While the details of Adoptionism vary from time to time and place to place, the basic idea is that Jesus was merely a human being who was adopted by God into His role as Messiah and Savior. The nature of this adoption, that is, what it effected IN Jesus is where Adoptionists differ. That and when exactly God the Father adopted Jesus the man to become the Son of God. Some think it occurred at his baptism, others at his resurrection, and still others at His ascension. Adoptionists all concur with Jesus' humanity, but deny His eternal essence as God the Son. They say he BECAME the Son of God, due to his morally excellent life.The Church declared Adoptionism a heresy at the end of the 2nd C, but it continued to find a home in the work of several teachers and groups in the following centuries, right up thru the Middle Ages and into small groups today.The term “Adoptionism” is used to describe another but very different flavor of the idea that arose in Spain during the 8th and 9th Cs. To differentiate it from classic adoptionism, which starts with a human Jesus who becomes the divine Christ by adoption, historians refer to this later heresy as Spanish Adoptionism. It begins with God the Son, adopting a human form, but not really the human NATURE that went with it.The first to articulate this view in the late 8th C was Elipandus, archbishop of Toledo. His views were quickly seized on by his opponents and declared heretical. His supporters were summoned to appear before Charlemagne, whose clerics were able to persuade them away from their aberrant beliefs. That ought to have been the end of the matter. They'd been treated civilly and with respect by the Emperor, but when they arrived before the Pope in Rome they were publically humiliated. This seems to have only inflamed the adherents back in Spain who determined to resist Rome's efforts to reign them in.This came at an unfortunate moment as the Church in Spain was at this time dealing with Moorish-Muslim rulers.While Adoptionism can rightly be labeled a heresy, especially its early manifestation, Spanish Adoptionism is a more tricky wicket. I don't want to get into the technical details of the theology, so let me just say that there is in the NT some passages in the Gospels and letters of Paul that seem to speak of Jesus' 2 sonships. When these passages are viewed through the lens of some of the early church fathers, one can see a subtle nod toward the core ideas of Spanish Adoptionism.It gets back to that issue we've spoken of often here in CS; how to understand, then how to ARTICULATE the nature, person, and identity of Jesus. Theology is the fine art of distinctions – distinctions that have to be expressed in words. Finding the exact, right word has proven to be the angst-filled work of centuries and some of the keenest minds in history.Though Spanish adoptionism was effectively quelled by the 10th C, it resurfaced in the 11th and 12th, to once again enjoy a moment in the sun, then to be sprayed with some more theological Roundup, and die out once more.It's the ancient, classical adoptionism that's enjoyed a resurgence in modern times in a flavor of liberal Christianity. In this brand of Adoptionism, Jesus is a man, who by his exemplary moral path becomes an enlightened agent for God's Spirit to work through.  This Liberal Jesus isn't a Savior so much as an Example.

TRANSCRIPT A blessed Holy Thursday to you, coming from our 10th-annual retreat, the first 8 at sea in what we creatively called "The Retreat at Sea" — and these last two on land, owing to the COVID scamdemic. We're in Frisco, Texas, just outside Dallas, with close to two hundred Catholics who have traveled here to be on retreat — a time to collect and be with Our Lord and away from the regular concerns of the world. And while the regular concerns of the world can be safely laid aside for a few days, they do not go away. We all know they are just beyond the borders of this retreat. Holy Thursday, always a celebration of the priesthood and the Holy Eucharist, is also a day where we recall the beginning of Our Lord's Passion, set in motion by the betrayal of Judas Iscariot. Always important to keep in mind — his treachery unfolded at the Last Supper, during one of the most intimate moments Our Lord had with His Apostles. While the events unfolded in the Upper Room, they began a year earlier in Capernaum, where Judas first denied Our Lord's Eucharistic self-revelation. In very clear terms now, Judas denied and betrayed Our Lord specifically because of the teaching of the Real Presence. He was a thief, true. But his thievery was only a prelude to his treachery — a greasing of the skids, if you will, an apostolic denial of the source and summit of the Faith. While it would be splendid if this had only happened just once, the truth is, we see this exact same denial and betrayal on the part of many successors of the Apostles today. Judas loved wealth and the power it brings with it, even to the point of stealing it. Those actions committed him to a prison of his own corruption and set the stage for his betrayal. In the Gospel account of the anointing of Our Lord's feet at Bethany (where Judas self-righteously objects to "wasting" such expensive ointment), Our Lord upbraids Judas, telling him to leave the woman alone who had anointed Him. What will you give me if I deliver Him up to you? It was clear, in Judas' mind (having waited out the year since the Bread of Life discourse at Capernaum), that his time to profit from the Nazarene was drawing to a close. He decided, as Matthew's Gospel tells us, that it was this realization that sent him to the chief priests, asking, "What will you give me if I deliver Him over to you?" Yet notice, Judas continued to keep company with Our Lord and the rest of the Apostles. He must have been very good at disguising his true feelings because, while Our Lord, of course, always knew, none of the others had the slightest clue. Even as Judas slipped out into the night from the Upper Room, even after they had all asked who would betray Him, they still did not think it was Judas. Traitors always disguise themselves cleverly, acting with such stealth so as not to be noticed. Is the same not true today among so many successors of the Apostles? For surely, there exist many Judases among them. Only the most faithful can discern them — and only then through deep reflection on their actions. Yet so terribly many Catholics today are led astray by Judas bishops, wanting to not deal with the truth of their treachery and its consequences. Yet this lot hide in plain sight, committing, defending and even promoting sacrilege, as child murderers are treated by them as worthy to receive Our Lord's Body and Blood. They deny the Deposit of the Faith indirectly — as well as directly. They seek to use Christ as their own elevator to power and wealth, just as Judas did, yet they will end the same way. Once he saw no more opportunity to personally profit from his association with God, he not only deserted Him, he betrayed Him. But unlike Judas, today's bishops show not even the slightest bit of remorse. At least Judas had remorse over his actions, coming to terms with the truth of his evil, saying, "I have betrayed innocent blood." Remorse, by itself, is insufficient to bring about salvation. But it is the necessary first step. Too many bishops today don't even have that. They have not only made public their betrayal, they have reaffirmed it time and time again, unrelenting on their march toward damnation. Judas committed one deed and, as despicable as it was, felt remorse for what he had done. On this score, today's bishops have far-outstripped Judas in treachery and, owing to their repeated deeds, feel not the slightest remorse. Heck, at least Judas wasn't homosexual and covering up the rape of teenage boys by the thousands. Can you imagine today's bishops actually causing a scene? Today's Judases sit quietly, as politicians they helped elect kill children by the millions, pervert the minds of others who escape the abortuary and destroy home and family on a scale never before seen in history — all with their blessing of silence and association. The account is relayed to us by St. Irenaeus, told to him by St. Polycarp (a direct disciple of St. John), that on spotting the heretic Cerinthus in a Roman bath he was also in, John got up instantly and fled, exclaiming on the way out, "Let us fly, lest even the bathhouse fall down because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within!" It is widely held that St. John wrote his First and Second Epistles in direct response to the heresies of Cerinthus. Can you imagine today's bishops actually getting up and causing a scene, leaving because a heretic was in the room — so much so that they didn't want to be under the same roof? Holy cow, they'd probably offer him Holy Communion. Oh wait, they do. Joe Biden and the entire panoply of heretical, dissident, phony Catholics should be expelled from the Church without another thought. But modern-day Judases welcome them, embrace them because, at the bottom, they are just like them. They have no love for Our Lord, truth, the Church or souls. They have run to the chief priests of the day (globalist politicians) and asked, "What will you give me if I deliver Him up to you?" While the glorious liturgies of the Triduum begin today, it is wise to never forget the thread of betrayal woven all through the tapestry of Our Lord's passion. That betrayal continues today.

El titulo del episodio de esta semana es “Compra Uno y Llévate Uno Gratis.”En el último episodio  tocamos brevemente un hereje llamado Marción. Fue uno de los primeros en introducir una enseñanza falsa que se convirtió en un gran desafío para la creciente Fe Cristiana; este movimiento errante era conocido como el Gnosticismo.Marción era el hijo del pastor de la iglesia de Ponto, en la costa sur del Mar Negro. Él era propietario de un barco de vela y despachaba carga y pasajeros a lo largo de todo el Imperio. Alrededor del año 140 d.C, el padre de Marción lo expulso de la congregación. Esto fue el resultado de la seducción de una mujer joven por Marción, o sus ideas cada vez más heréticas, o ambos. Cualquiera que sea la razón, el se trasladó a Roma, donde era un desconocido y su reputación era intachable. Cuando hizo una gran contribución a la Iglesia de Roma, eso también ayudo a mover las ruedas de su aceptación como miembro de buena reputación.Pero Marción pronto comenzó a exponer ideas que se apartaban de lo que enseñaban los ancianos de la iglesia. En sus viajes anteriores, Marción había sido influenciado por un maestro llamado Cerdo, uno de los primeros defensores de lo que hoy se conoce como el Gnosticismo.Ahora, permítanme ser claro, el Gnosticismo era más una tendencia religiosa que un movimiento unido con un conjunto de doctrinas centrales. Mientras que los Gnósticos celebró un conjunto creencias básicas comunes, ellos las interpretaban de muchas maneras diferentes. Esto hace difícil describir al Gnosticismo. En general, podemos decir que fue una mezcolanza deFilosofía Griega,Cultos del misterio orientales, yTerminología De la filosofía Griega, los Gnósticos tomaron prestado la idea de que toda la materia física era intrínsecamente e inalterablemente mala, mientras que el reino espiritual fue igualmente, inherentemente & inalterablemente bueno. Del ocultismo y cultos del misterio oriental esotérico tomaron la idea que existía un cuerpo de conocimientos secretos que cuando los entendías te concedían la iluminación. Esta iluminación fue el equivalente Gnóstico de la salvación porque esta iluminación liberaba la conciencia de la mera existencia física a una especie de espiritualidad permanente.El gnosticismo tomó su nombre de esta idea de "salvación a través de la iluminación." La palabra griega "gnosis" significa 'conocimiento'.Porque el movimiento Cristiano estaba creciendo rápidamente, los Gnósticos adoptaron formas y términos Cristianos como una astuta táctica de marketing, esperando a empeñar sus ideas como una forma élite del Cristianismo. La estrategia funcionó y el Gnosticismo se arraigó en varias congregaciones igual que lo hacen los vientos de falsa enseñanza en cada generación.Marción fue uno de los primeros en introducir elementos Gnósticos en su altamente editada forma del cristianismo. Tomando de las enseñanzas de Cerdo, el propuso 2 diferentes dioses; un airado, vengativo la deidad del AT, y una figura cálida, amorosa de padre del NT. Siguiendo la línea Gnóstica, Marción, dijo que el cuerpo físico era malvado y promovió una ascetismo riguroso que negaba todo placer físico. Los seguidores de Marción tomaban la comunión con agua porque el vino era demasiado sabroso. Fueron tan extremos para decir que incluso el sexo dentro del matrimonio era tabú.Marción afirmaba que Jesús no nació de María. El dijo Jesús apareció en Capernaúm en el año 29 d.C. como un hombre adulto. Tengamos en cuenta que = Jesús solamente apareció. Marción decía que Jesús no tenía un cuerpo literal. Él no podía ya tener un cuerpo físico, el cuerpo era malo. Jesús apareció solamente, o parecía tener un cuerpo; en verdad, él era más fantasma que tangible.Esta creencia se le llama Docetismo; una de las primeras formas de Gnosticismo. Docetismo proviene del significado de la palabra parecer. Marción dijo que la muerte y resurrección de Cristo no era literal; no lo podía ser porque Jesús no era corporal. Era sólo un manifestación  fantasmagórica del amor y el sacrificio de Dios. Aunque la Iglesia de Roma rápidamente se dio cuenta de la teología errónea de Marción y declaro sus ideas heréticas en el año 144 d.C. , sus ideas se propagaron y Marción creó una falsa Iglesia en partes de Italia y  Asia Menor donde los cultos de misterio orientales eran populares. Congregaciones Marcionistas llegaron tan lejos como Egipto y Arabia y seguían funcionando hasta el comienzo del siglo IV.Marción fue sólo una de las corrientes del Gnosticismo que se desarrolló durante el segundo y tercer siglos para desafiar a la Ortodoxia Cristiana. La principal característica de todos los Gnósticos era su marcado dualismo, separando lo físico y lo espiritual en reinos totalmente divergentes. Ellos creían que el reino espiritual contenía una jerarquía de seres espirituales que estaban  en diferentes niveles en el camino hacia arriba, hacia un trascendente y supremo Espíritu. Este Dios trascendente habia dado lugar a una deidad inferior, y esa había hecho lo mismo, y así sucesivamente a lo largo de miles de emanaciones espirituales hasta que hubo un espíritu lo suficientemente distante del Espíritu original para ser tan bajo como para ser capaz de crear el universo físico. Algunos gnósticos como Cerdo y Marción, decían que este humilde Espíritu creador fue el Dios judío del Antiguo Testamento.Los Gnósticos creían que chispas de la divinidad, pequeñas porciones de espíritu puro estaban encerrados dentro de algunos, pero no todos, seres humanos. Aquellos que lo tenían, ellos decían, se podían convertir en Gnósticos. Esta era otra ingeniosa táctica de marketing; después de todo, ¿quién no quiere pensar que tienen un poco de chispa de algo especial? Así entonces fueron tentados a ir al gnóstico para demostrar que lo tenían. El siguiente paso era pagarle a uno de los maestros gnósticos la cuota necesaria para aprender la Gnosis, es decir, el conocimiento secreto, lo que podría soplar sobre su chispa divina para convertirla en un fuego ardiente.Voila = Iluminación!Era una antigua versión de, "La primera lección es gratis, pero si quieres ir mas profundo, bueno, eso te va a costar. Oh, y por cierto, si eres inteligente, claro que te vas a unir a nosotros, porque eso es lo que hacen los inteligentes que tienen la chispa divina. Deseas ser uno de los especiales o ¿no? Además, regístrate, paga la inscripción y estás dentro! Ah, y por si fuera poco - si te inscribes hoy, tienes el 50% de descuento."Bueno, obviamente, yo añadí la última parte, pero una vez que te das cuenta como eran los maestros Gnósticos realmente no se sorprenderían si tenían versiones antiguas de todos los trucos de ventas moderna. Planes familiares, Plan Comprar Uno, y Consiga Uno Gratis, Sin gastos de envío.Para los Gnósticos, la Iluminación era igual que la Salvación. Fue la realización que no eran meramente seres humanos carentes de la chispa divina, tan poco mejor que animales. Ellos eran espíritus atados a la tierra destinados a re-emerger en la Jerarquía Divina, esa serie de emanaciones del supremo y trascendente, Dios. El Gnosticismo fue una progresión escalonada de crecimiento espiritual por el cual miembros aumentaban su rango, pagándole a sus guías Gnóstico más y más para aprender cada vez más poderosa Gnosis. Si esto suena parecido a un grupo religioso moderno que se llama a sí mismo un nombre similar = algo parecido, a → Conocimientologia = bueno realmente no hay nada nuevo bajo el sol._________________________________________________________________________________________________________El gnosticismo presentó un desafío a la Iglesia por un par de razones.Primero = Los Gnósticos usaban muchos de los mismos términos que cristianos usaban. Esto confundía a los nuevos cristianos y aquellos que no eran enseñados correctamente. Es algo que hacen las pseudo-sectas cristianas hasta este día. Ellos utilizan vocabulario ortodoxo pero le dan diferentes significados a las palabras..Segundo = Es la naturaleza humana el ser atraído a lo que es secreto, oculto y misterioso; y eso era  el fundamento principal de los Gnósticos.Tercero = Los gnósticos creían que eran superiores a los demás. Este apeló al orgullo en nosotros que siempre esta presente. La Biblia enseña que el hombre fue creado en la imagen de Dios y destinado originalmente para la gloria. Hay un sentimiento latente de un llamado a la gloria que perdura en el alma de todos nosotros. La grandeza nos atrae a todos. Los Gnósticos decían que eso era la chispa divina y sólo ellos podían activarla.Cuarto = La naturaleza humana supone que algo tan importante como la salvación tiene que ser costoso. No hay tal cosa como una comida gratis. El Evangelio Cristiano nos enseña, que aunque la salvación es por la gracia de Dios y es un regalo para nosotros, fue sumamente costoso para Dios porque le costo la vida de Cristo. Pero muchos no entienden esta parte y piensan que la gracia es totalmente gratuita. El mensaje del Evangelio sobre la salvación por gracia parece dudoso y débil para aquellos convencidos que tiene que haber trabajo involucrado en alcanzarlo, comparado con la campaña Gnóstica de "Pagar por Jugar".Lo que viene como una sorpresa es darnos cuenta que el primer real desafío doctrinal al Cristianismo no fue sobre la deidad de Jesús. Fue sobre su humanidad. Hoy en día, la controversia mayor es sobre si Jesús es Dios. Es fácil verlo como un hombre. Lo más difícil es entender cómo lo humano y lo divino se unen en la Encarnación, así que esto se convirtió en uno de los principales puntos de enfrentamiento con los no cristianos y los cultos orientales. El Docetismo de Marción y otros Gnósticos mantenían la divinidad de Jesús, pero negaban su humanidad.Ahora permítanme darles un poco de información adelantada de uno de nuestros episodios futuros al llegar al 4ª y 5ª siglo. Resulta que las batallas en las cuales entró la iglesia de cómo entender la doble naturaleza de Cristo se convirtió en un período de la historia de la Iglesia sangriento y polémico. Uno de los Concilios de la Iglesia le es dado apodo, “el Sínodo gánster“ porque los líderes de la iglesia que asistieron llegaron a golpes sobre esta cuestión. ⇒ momentos divertidos!Regresando al Gnosticismo . . .Otras corrientes del Gnosticismo enseñaban que Jesús y Cristo eran dos entidades separadas. Jesús fue sólo un hombre con una madre humana y padre,  pero Cristo fue un espíritu que descendió sobre el hombre Jesús en Su bautismo, ministró a través de él durante 3 años, luego partió en el Huerto de Getsemaní. Así que el hombre que murió en la cruz fue solo un caparazón gastado; su muerte no logró nada en términos de la salvación. Estos gnósticos creían que el espíritu de Cristo o la conciencia de Cristo continuaba habitando en la vida de sus líderes y podía venir a quienes mostraban suficiente iluminación.Como Marción con su lista abreviada de los libros aprobados de la Biblia, que consideramos en el episodio anterior, los gnósticos editaban porciones del NT y quitaban todo los que hablaba de Cristo en el mundo físico. Él no podía haber escrito en el polvo de la tierra o haber comido después de la resurrección, porque bueno, los espíritus no hacen ese tipo de cosas. También tenían que insertar episodios en la historia de Jesús, que daban una apertura para su teología aberrante. La reciente oleada de Evangelios alternativos que han salido en las noticias son en la mayoría escrituras Gnósticas conocidas por la primera iglesia, pero rechazadas por su origen agregado y dudoso propósito gnóstico. No fueron incluidos en el canon del NT porque no cumplían con los criterios que se utilizaban para validar los escritos aceptados del Canon Bíblico.Como he mencionado, hubo varias ramas o corrientes del Gnosticismo. Eran diferentes en todo tipo de formas. Una de las principales divisiones era en torno de cómo tratar con el núcleo de sus creencias sobre la maldad intrínseca en todas las cosas. Un grupo creía que la manera correcta de responder era teniendo un estricto ascetismo que evitara el placer físico. Sólo comían más alimentos sin mucho sabor, bebían bebidas insípidas, vestían ropas incómodas, se abstenían de sexo y evitaban cualquier tipo de estimulación de los sentidos que se consideraban placenteros.El otro grupo era una cambio de 180° del ascetismo. Estos gnósticos se sumergían en el placer físico. Decían que el ascetismo era inútil, pues si era placentera o no, el contacto con el mundo era inalterablemente malo- así que no importaba! Si estaba todo mal, quizás era bueno disfrutar de ella! Estos gnósticos hicieron su objetivo sumergirse en el placer, y esto muchas veces significaba caer en todo tipo de inmoralidad. Ellos pensaban experimentar la iluminación de todos modos, y esto demostraría que su conciencia estaba divorciada de su cuerpo. Estos gnósticos decían que su chispa divina era como una perla que no podía ser manchada por el lodo del mundo. Por supuesto, esto era bastante atractivo para personas que deseaban continuar en pecado y creer que iban al cielo cuando morían.En medio de estos dos extremos, encontramos las otras corrientes del pensamiento y enseñanza Gnóstica._________________________________________________________________________________________________________Hasta el siglo 19,  la mayoría de lo que sabíamos acerca de los Gnósticos venia de los líderes Cristianos como Ireneo y Orígenes que refutaban sus ideas.Esto es lo que el Padre de la Primera Iglesia, Ireneo, escribió acerca de los Gnósticos en el prólogo de su trabajo; "Contra las Herejías".“Estos hombres falsifican los oráculos de Dios, y demuestran ser mal intérpretes de la buena palabra de la revelación. También derrocan la fe de muchos, arrastrandolos lejos, bajo pretexto de conocimiento superior, de El que redondeo y adorno el universo; como si tuvieran algo más excelente y sublime para revelar, que el Dios que creó el cielo y la tierra, y todas las cosas en él. Por medio de palabras engañosas, ellos astutamente seducen los de mentes simples para investigar su sistema; pero ellos no obstante los destruyen torpemente, mientras los inician en sus blasfemas e impías opiniones . . . Y estos simples son incapaces, incluso en estas cosas, de distinguir la mentira de la verdad.”_________________________________________________________________________________________________________Como les habia dicho, hasta hace poco, casi todos lo que los historiadores sabían sobre el Gnosticismo antiguo, fue lo que los que se oponían decían acerca de ellos. Pero despues, hace varias décadas, los antiguos manuscritos Gnósticos comenzaron a salir a la superficie. Los más notables son el Codex Askewianus, el Evangelio de María Magdalena, La Sabiduría de Jesús, y los Actos de Pedro. En 1946, una colección de manuscritos gnósticos fue descubierta cerca de Nag Hammadi en Egipto. Les dieron una fecha de haber sido escritos a finales del siglo 4.Simon Magus, mencionado en Hechos 8, fue catalogado por los primeros cristianos como el iniciador del Gnosticismo y, de hecho, pudo haber tenido una mano en la mezcla la filosofía griega, los misterios oriental, y el lenguaje cristiano en un espiritualismo hecho en casa. Después de Simón, otro maestro gnóstico llamado Menander le dio seguimiento y elaboro sobre el trabajo Simón. Saturninus trajo el gnosticismo a Antioquía de Siria, donde una floreciente comunidad Cristiana ya existía.Cerinthus propago el Gnosticismo en Asia menor y, como hemos visto Cerdo & Marción trajeron las ideas Gnósticas a Roma.Donde el Gnosticismo prosperó fue en la ciudad de Alejandría en África del Norte, la segunda más grande del Imperio Romano y una ciudad muy influyente. Alejandría era un centro de cultura y aprendizaje y la presencia allí del Gnosticismo avanzo considerablemente su alcance.Las condiciones áridas del norte de África también facilitaron la preservación de documentos, por lo que algunos de nuestros manuscritos más antiguos del NT provienen de esa región. Algunos eruditos conservadores creen que estos manuscritos aportan evidencias de manipulación gnóstica porque tienden a excluir a las porciones de los Evangelios que hacen referencia a la existencia  de Jesús corporal, así como aquellas partes las epístolas del NT que hablan sobre la vida de fe que afecta al mundo físico.Pero el resultado neto del Gnosticismo en la Iglesia fue en aclarar lo que los Cristianos creían acerca de la humanidad y deidad de Cristo y la naturaleza de la fe. Desafíos Gnósticos movieron a los líderes de la Iglesia a determinar qué libros eran Escritura y también que eran las doctrinas esenciales. Aunque la causa de la ortodoxia fue avanzada por confrontar las ideas del Gnosticismo. Las ideas gnósticas se arraigaron en algunas iglesias y a principios del siglo 4, cuando el cristianismo fue finalmente liberado de la persecución del Imperio, los líderes de la iglesia se dividieron sobre algunas de las ideas que el Gnosticismo había insertado en la iglesia.Pero ese es un asunto para un episodio futuro.