I deleted the following two paragraphs from near the end of the article because they are factually in error.
These homilies are generally thought to have been written in the early third century, possibly based on earlier material that may have been written in the late second century. Second, they discuss Simon Magus by name, not Paul, although some scholars speculate that Simon was an encoded reference to Paul. Based on the dating alone, they could not have been written by Clement of Rome. Wesley 17:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I find it ironic that this is in here. In it's full context, this verse is actually having a go at Gnosticism! Read verse 1 Corinthians 8-10 in its entirity: "Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears." That seems to be refuting Gnosticism! the clue here is that he is saying that where there is knowledge, it will pass away. Considering that Gnosticism was based on "knowledge" I think it would be strange for a Gnostic Paul to say that knowledge would pass away, don't you think?
Another thing is, Plato didn't necessarily hold the view that he knew nothing. Socrates did, and Plato wrote about it. To say that about Plato shows a deep misunderstanding of the man and his writing. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You really should use an accurate translation, TBSDY. The phrase concerning "gnosis" i.e. "knowledge" is more accurately translated "knowledge puffeth up" (which modern evangelical translators have ASSUMED is an attack, but the gnostics said it meant that it improved oneself, and lead to a fealing of fulfillment).
In not translating words which have meaning as concepts, it appears that Paul states to Christians (in Romans) I long to see you, so that I may share with you a certain pneumatic charisma (Romans 1:11-12). Charisma is derived ( etymologically) from makarismos, which means the manner in which those who had witnessed the mysteries of mystery religions were considered blessed, and pneumatic is the gnostic term for the class of people who were governed by their spiritual side and thus saved.
I looked this up and asked some people who speak Greek, the work pneumatikon, which is an adjective. Pneuma is a generic Greek word for spirit, not exclusively Gnostic. The other word is Charisma, which is a general Greek word for "gift". So basically that's dubious. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Paul also can be construed as referring to the initiation system of the mystery religions. In 2 Corinthians, Paul refers to those who are novices in the religion as having veils over their face as their mind was blinded, a principle that mystery religions considered true and as such some made their novices wear veils and referred to them as mystae (i.e. having closed eyes).
The article states: "Paul cut his hair at Cenchreae, waiting for a ship to Ephesus, despite the Jewish prohibition on doing so outside of Jerusalem." That's the first I've heard of this. What source states this? Would someone be able to clarify it? If not, I'm going to take it out. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Coming back to look at this article again, the whole thing reads like an essay arguing for a point, rather than an encyclopedia article. It cites almost no sources, but rather puts forth arguments for a POV. With this in mind, I think it should be majorly overhauled, or possibly even considered for deletion. Wesley 17:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I would like to confirm something. According to Paul and Gnosticism
However, I talked to a friend who studied Greek and he tells me that the word is actually pneumatikon, which is an adjective. Pneuma is a generic Greek word for spirit, not exclusively Gnostic. The other word is Charisma, which is a general Greek word for "gift". Thus it does not make it a confirmation of Gnosticism.
Can some clarify this for me? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Without addressing the issue whether or not Paul was a Gnostic (disclosure: I doubt that he was), shouldn't this article address the fact that the overwhelming majority of Biblical scholars hold that not only wasn't Paul a Gnostic, but far too often their arguments over who were Gnostic in their outlook or belief were defined by how they disagreed with Paul & his teachings? I remember one Christian historian assuming that the wayward Christians of Corinth Paul wrote to were embracing Gnostic ideals, although his 2 surviving letters to that congregation do not clearly substantiate whether the Corinthians were Gnostics.
Failing to state that Biblical scholars for centuries have assumed that Paul was not a Gnostic is tantamount to asking whether Ronald Reagan was a socialist & ignoring the fact that tens of millions of US citizens have assumed for decades that he was not. This failure to explain the historiography of the issue only allows certain miscontents to slip Gnosticism into the mainstream thru the backdoor -- instead of properly arguing for it. -- llywrch 01:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The following:
does not give the verse in 1 Corinthians, so I am unable to verify this information. Until this is clarified, it's going. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:14, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have removed:
until I can get some info on what part of Isaiah is being referred to, and to see where this source of information is coming from. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have also removed:
because it is unclear where exactly this info is from! Please provide the chapter and verse before we put this back again. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I deleted the following two paragraphs from near the end of the article because they are factually in error.
These homilies are generally thought to have been written in the early third century, possibly based on earlier material that may have been written in the late second century. Second, they discuss Simon Magus by name, not Paul, although some scholars speculate that Simon was an encoded reference to Paul. Based on the dating alone, they could not have been written by Clement of Rome. Wesley 17:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I find it ironic that this is in here. In it's full context, this verse is actually having a go at Gnosticism! Read verse 1 Corinthians 8-10 in its entirity: "Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears." That seems to be refuting Gnosticism! the clue here is that he is saying that where there is knowledge, it will pass away. Considering that Gnosticism was based on "knowledge" I think it would be strange for a Gnostic Paul to say that knowledge would pass away, don't you think?
Another thing is, Plato didn't necessarily hold the view that he knew nothing. Socrates did, and Plato wrote about it. To say that about Plato shows a deep misunderstanding of the man and his writing. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You really should use an accurate translation, TBSDY. The phrase concerning "gnosis" i.e. "knowledge" is more accurately translated "knowledge puffeth up" (which modern evangelical translators have ASSUMED is an attack, but the gnostics said it meant that it improved oneself, and lead to a fealing of fulfillment).
In not translating words which have meaning as concepts, it appears that Paul states to Christians (in Romans) I long to see you, so that I may share with you a certain pneumatic charisma (Romans 1:11-12). Charisma is derived ( etymologically) from makarismos, which means the manner in which those who had witnessed the mysteries of mystery religions were considered blessed, and pneumatic is the gnostic term for the class of people who were governed by their spiritual side and thus saved.
I looked this up and asked some people who speak Greek, the work pneumatikon, which is an adjective. Pneuma is a generic Greek word for spirit, not exclusively Gnostic. The other word is Charisma, which is a general Greek word for "gift". So basically that's dubious. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Paul also can be construed as referring to the initiation system of the mystery religions. In 2 Corinthians, Paul refers to those who are novices in the religion as having veils over their face as their mind was blinded, a principle that mystery religions considered true and as such some made their novices wear veils and referred to them as mystae (i.e. having closed eyes).
The article states: "Paul cut his hair at Cenchreae, waiting for a ship to Ephesus, despite the Jewish prohibition on doing so outside of Jerusalem." That's the first I've heard of this. What source states this? Would someone be able to clarify it? If not, I'm going to take it out. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Coming back to look at this article again, the whole thing reads like an essay arguing for a point, rather than an encyclopedia article. It cites almost no sources, but rather puts forth arguments for a POV. With this in mind, I think it should be majorly overhauled, or possibly even considered for deletion. Wesley 17:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I would like to confirm something. According to Paul and Gnosticism
However, I talked to a friend who studied Greek and he tells me that the word is actually pneumatikon, which is an adjective. Pneuma is a generic Greek word for spirit, not exclusively Gnostic. The other word is Charisma, which is a general Greek word for "gift". Thus it does not make it a confirmation of Gnosticism.
Can some clarify this for me? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Without addressing the issue whether or not Paul was a Gnostic (disclosure: I doubt that he was), shouldn't this article address the fact that the overwhelming majority of Biblical scholars hold that not only wasn't Paul a Gnostic, but far too often their arguments over who were Gnostic in their outlook or belief were defined by how they disagreed with Paul & his teachings? I remember one Christian historian assuming that the wayward Christians of Corinth Paul wrote to were embracing Gnostic ideals, although his 2 surviving letters to that congregation do not clearly substantiate whether the Corinthians were Gnostics.
Failing to state that Biblical scholars for centuries have assumed that Paul was not a Gnostic is tantamount to asking whether Ronald Reagan was a socialist & ignoring the fact that tens of millions of US citizens have assumed for decades that he was not. This failure to explain the historiography of the issue only allows certain miscontents to slip Gnosticism into the mainstream thru the backdoor -- instead of properly arguing for it. -- llywrch 01:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The following:
does not give the verse in 1 Corinthians, so I am unable to verify this information. Until this is clarified, it's going. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:14, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have removed:
until I can get some info on what part of Isaiah is being referred to, and to see where this source of information is coming from. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have also removed:
because it is unclear where exactly this info is from! Please provide the chapter and verse before we put this back again. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)