Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] new gnostic gospel discovered [Religion]

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Mike Miller wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>
> > Rick Buford wrote:
> > > Does this imply that I'm the anti-christ for not acknowledging Jesus?
> > >
> > > Rick
> >
> > I think that this passage refers to those who say that they are 
> > "Christians" but teach a different gospel.  Since I don't think you claim 
> > to be a Christian, I think that you would be refered to as "unbeliever" 
> > rather than "antichrist."
> >
> > (I put "Christian" in quotes, because the term was not very widely used at 
> > that time.)
>
>
> It is interesting that you have to be a Christian to qualify as an 
> antichrist.  The whole idea of Christ/antichrist is a little amusing.  Do 
> other religions have that?: e.g., antibuddha or antimohammed? Christianity 
> seems to have a little built-in paranoia.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> discussion mailing list
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

The word "anti-christ" seems to be a joining of two Greek words "anti" 
(which I guess means "opposite"?) and "christ" (which I think means 
"king").  Presumably readers of that time would have understood the word 
in that sense - maybe it means something like "a person who is the 
opposite to Christ."  I'm not a Greek scholar so I really don't know.  But 
I doubt that John meant to use the word in the bogy-man sense that it
means to us today.

So the thing to do with this passage is not to focus on an individual word 
in it, but to try to assertain its broader meaning, viz, there are a bunch 
of people who originally were part of our group, who are now teaching a 
gospel that is antithetical to the core message that needs to be taught. 
You should avoid listening or helping these people.

It is this meaning I was intending when I said that I couldn't understand 
why the Princeton prof, that the original article quoted, said that there 
was a myth that religion was monolithic in its early days.  It seems plain 
to me that even a casual aquaintance with the Bible will say that this 
very clearly was not the case.

Stephen




_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion