MortalWombat

Well, by the definition of the church councils starting in the 4th century. But my guess is that John was written a bit before then.

Ted Hoffman

I think NOGO has a point. But would the Jesus Mythers of that time (the first Century?) be many enough to bother Paul?

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

NOGO

The biggest enemy is the one within your own ranks. That Jews denied Christianity should have become rather commonplace for Paul and other Christian leaders.

Your question has a time element in it. You assume that Christianity started around 30 CE which assumes that Jesus (if he existed) started Christianity. If Jesus did not start Christianity then the time element is open. Christianity may have been around for a century or more when Paul converted. How do we know for sure?

Toto

Evidently they were. Early Christians were very divided over the nature of Jesus, and exactly how fleshly vs spiritual he was. It took a lot of heresy hunting to establish the received truth that Jesus was flesh but also part of the triune God. Freke and Gandy record a lot of that history in <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=704" target="_blank">The Jesus Mysteries</a>. (The book is popular rather than scholarly, but you can follow their footnotes on this issue.)

Christians now try to pretend that the early church was based on a historical person named Jesus, and the heresies only arose later. But the historical evidence does not support that. The heretics were around and were numerous from the earliest days.

CX

It seems to me this clearly reflects the church's early conflicts with heresy. It seems to be referring to gnostic ideas. What's your point?

CX

What? I strongly doubt it. It seems apparent that 2 John is concerned with docetic heretics within the church. However do you conclude that it refers to the Jews?

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]</p>

CX

On the contrary, discussion is apparently necessary. We should recall that at the time 2 John was written Xianity was not as formalized as it is today. Many people who considered themselves Xian had differing ideas about many doctrinal issues. For example Arianus (the center of the controversy surrounding Arianism) was a member of the Church yet he rejected "christ's coming in the flesh" adopting the gnostic idea that it only appeared as such.

MortalWombat

Doesn't the existence of so many differing viewpoints of Christ so early on in the development of Christianity (eg. Paul railing against false apostles who "proclaim another Jesus" in 2 Corinthians, the above quote from 2 John, etc.) and the sheer variety of Christian expression and competitiveness in the first century point to a multi-factorial source for Christian beliefs?

Bede

CX,

You may be right about Docetists but I am sticking to Jews, with my emphasis on Christ in the quotation.

And I thought that the Arians said Jesus was human rather than divine which is not a terribly gnostic idea at all. Now, if this was described as not "coming in the flesh" that is, denying the incarnation, then I think that would strongly suggest that John is refering to Jews.

Just tossing around ideas and regretting my no discussion remark. It was a bad day. I hate being stuck in Germany.

Yours

Bede

NOGO

Right, if the word Jesus did not appear in the text then I would agree with you.
But it does and with my emphasis on Jesus it can't be Jews.
Sorry Bede, your position has no basis in reason.