Gnostic Discussion

[dlamberth]

That's because there's a great deal of Neoplatonism in Sufi thought.

Maybe at some level, but gnosis isn't thought. It's wisdom gained by inner "experience". That's a lot different than "thought".

 

[dlamberth]

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I'd start with John 1:1 as my first example of gnossis in the Bible.

 

[jaybird88]

Those things never happened. We started with the 4 canonical gospels. The other, fake, gospels came later.

fake according to who?
they came later? Thomas is just as old if not older than the four canon.

 

[jaybird88]

Those things never happened. We started with the 4 canonical gospels. The other, fake, gospels came later.

fake according to

The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels is one of the books that literally changed my life. I like honesty in religion, and this book is about being honest with the development of early Christianity. Why couldn’t there be other authentic gospels than those in the Bible? When I learned the historical facts surrounding the choice of only four "true" gospels, and then why any other gospels were literally suppressed, I was deeply disturbed. The more I read the more I felt like I'd been deceived.

rome did a very good job of destroying sacred scripture, killing spiritual leaders and burning down temples. and then rome tells us there are only four gospels, and no more. for some reason i dont trust these guys. rome did far worse than the canaanites ever did yet we are to believe rome became the new center for the faith of Jesus? the same ones that killed Him? its mind boggling.

 

[Radagast]

I'd start with John 1:1 as my first example of gnossis in the Bible.

The Gospel of John is, in fact, profoundly anti-gnostic.

From the Oxford English dictionary:

gnostic: relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge

 

[Radagast]

fake according to who?

According to early Christians and according to manuscript dating.

they came later? Thomas is just as old if not older than the four canon.

Thomas is generally dated to the 2nd or 3rd century. The canonical gospels are all 1st century.

 

[Radagast]

... and then rome tells us there are only four gospels, and no more.

The early Christians who said that weren't in Rome.

 

[jaybird88]

But I'm convinced that gnosticism runs through out the Bible.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

1 John 2:15
15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
what was it about the world the Gnostics put so much emphasis on?

 

[jaybird88]

According to early Christians and according to manuscript dating.

there were many early pre rome Christian sects that held these other gospels in high regard. so what about those guys, they dont count?

Thomas is generally dated to the 2nd or 3rd century. The canonical gospels are all 1st century.

this dating process usually has a 100 year window, looks like you pushing the Thomas date up 100 years and back 100 on the others. not the best way to establish truth IMO

 

[Radagast]

there were many early pre rome Christian sects that held these other gospels in high regard. so what about those guys, they dont count?

(1) they were 2nd and 3rd century groups.

(2) they weren't Christian.

So, no.

this dating process usually has a 100 year window, looks like you pushing the Thomas date up 100 years and back 100 on the others. not the best way to establish truth IMO

I was quoting generally accepted dates. Pretty much everyone agrees that the canonical gospels were written before 100. Pretty much everyone agrees that Thomas was written well after 100.

 

[jaybird88]

(1) they were 2nd and 3rd century groups.

(2) they weren't Christian.

So, no.

they were not Christian according to rome and rome was the enemy of Jesus lol.

I was quoting generally accepted dates. Pretty much everyone agrees that the canonical gospels were written before 100. Pretty much everyone agrees that Thomas was written well after 100.

they may have been written before 100 but the oldest existing text is well after 100, just the same as Thomas. the oldest gospel complete book is in the 600s, many hundred years after Thomas.

 

[Rajni]

In a way, it's kind of funny that there's even a distinction being made
between gnostic/heterodox/heretical and orthodox/correct-doctrine,
given that it's all just belief anyway. That's why it's called "faith" and
"belief", not "hard-core knowledge". Between womb and tomb, that's
all we really have: Belief.

Personal experience will definitely give whatever conclusions one
comes to a distinct edge over any claims descended down from
musty, dusty stacks of archaic writings. In some cases, such
experiences may even support some of those writings, but it'll be
anecdotal at best.

And obviously, that's the way things have been set up by the
Designer. It's like a very long, elaborate Riddle that we get to solve.
It does appear that Love puts one on the fast-track to getting to the
solution of that Riddle, though. That much, I'm convinced of.

I like how Rumi once put it: “Do not be satisfied with the stories that
come before you. Unfold your own myth." ◠‿◠


-

 

[dlamberth]

The Gospel of John is, in fact, profoundly anti-gnostic.

From the Oxford English dictionary:

gnostic: relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge

For clearity, my comment was not about Christian Gnostics (big G). I was pointing towards gnosticism (little g). I'd word the definition you gave a bit differently. The way I'd put it is like this: gnostic: Wisdom gained from inner "experience".

I think you'll have to argue with the Christian mystics about John 1:1 not being a gnostic experience for them. They will say quite the opposite. And that John IS a profoundly gnostic text. The mystics also tend to "experience" Christ in 3 parts, as man/God/and Cosmic in nature. Those kinds of mystics are people who have internalized the experience of a living cosmology. Which for them is the Cosmic wide reach of the Living Word.

More than anything, I think the way in how you take in Christ and how others such as the Mystics take in Christ shows how differently different people approach God. Personally I prefer the Mytics approach where ALL is "experienced" as bound together and connected by the Divine Light.

 

[dlamberth]

In a way, it's kind of funny that there's even a distinction being made
between gnostic/heterodox/heretical and orthodox/correct-doctrine,
given that it's all just belief anyway. That's why it's called "faith" and
"belief", not "hard-core knowledge". Between womb and tomb, that's
all we really have: Belief.

Personal experience will definitely give whatever conclusions one
comes to a distinct edge over any claims descended down from
musty, dusty stacks of archaic writings. In some cases, such
experiences may even support some of those writings, but it'll be
anecdotal at best.

And obviously, that's the way things have been set up by the
Designer. It's like a very long, elaborate Riddle that we get to solve.
It does appear that Love puts one on the fast-track to getting to the
solution of that Riddle, though. That much, I'm convinced of.

I like how Rumi once put it: “Do not be satisfied with the stories that
come before you. Unfold your own myth." ◠‿◠


-

gnosis is not a "belief", it's what a person does. It's an action. The added bonus that personal experience or gnosis gives a person over that of Belief is a deeper personal living relationship with the Divinity of God. Rumi is a gnostic.

 

[Rajni]

gnosis is not a "belief", it's what a person does. It's an action.

To be honest, understanding the whole gnostic/gnosis term
for me is like nailing jello to a wall, and I've been labeled
as such ("gnostic", not "jello" ) in the past. Maybe it's
because the term has gotten watered down so much over
time.

At any rate, our actions, and what we do, all stem from
what we believe. So I guess it's all one and the same.

The added bonus that personal experience or gnosis gives a person over that of Belief is a deeper personal living relationship with the Divinity of God. Rumi is a gnostic.

Agreed.

Although, I guess I hesitate to call myself gnostic
(preferring the term "mystic" for myself) because even what
I think I know could be wrong. So even then, I can't really
call it "knowledge", but only "belief". It's whatever level of
understanding I have at the current moment, which can
easily be O.B.E.'d down the road as new information comes
in.

Disclaimer: The above refers to things of a spiritual nature;
I do believe that my knowledge of things such as, say,
gravity, is air-tight. Still, I'm trying really hard not to add "I
could be wrong about that" with regards to the gravity
thing.


-

-

 

[redleghunter]

fake according to who?
they came later? Thomas is just as old if not older than the four canon.

Some scholars do put Thomas as contemporary to the 4 canonical Gospels . However, none of the early church fathers quote from Thomas. Especially the sub apostolic era of Ignatius and Polycarp.

 

[dlamberth]

Although, I guess I hesitate to call myself gnostic
(preferring the term "mystic" for myself) because even what
I think I know could be wrong. So even then, I can't really
call it "knowledge", but only "belief". It's whatever level of
understanding I have at the current moment, which can
easily be O.B.E.'d down the road as new information comes
in.
-

Take away any and all beliefs. What's left? That's what Rumi is constantly pointing towards.

 

[jaybird88]

Some scholars do put Thomas as contemporary to the 4 canonical Gospels . However, none of the early church fathers quote from Thomas. Especially the sub apostolic era of Ignatius and Polycarp.

2 Clement 12
Yesterday I read, "For the Lord himself, being asked when the kingdom would come, replied,
‘When two shall be one, that which is without as that which is within, and the male with the female, neither male nor female’".

(22)
(1) Jesus saw infants being suckled.
(2) He said to his disciples:
"These little ones being suckled are like those who enter the kingdom."
(3) They said to him: "Then will we enter the kingdom as little ones?"
(4) Jesus said to them: "When you make the two into one,
and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside
and the above like the below –
(5) that is, to make the male and the female into a single one,
so that the male will not be male and the female will not be female –
(6) and when you make eyes instead of an eye
and a hand instead of a hand and a foot instead of a foot,
an image instead of an image, (7) then you will enter [the kingdom]."

 

[redleghunter]

2 Clement 12
Yesterday I read, "For the Lord himself, being asked when the kingdom would come, replied,
‘When two shall be one, that which is without as that which is within, and the male with the female, neither male nor female’".

(22)
(1) Jesus saw infants being suckled.
(2) He said to his disciples:
"These little ones being suckled are like those who enter the kingdom."
(3) They said to him: "Then will we enter the kingdom as little ones?"
(4) Jesus said to them: "When you make the two into one,
and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside
and the above like the below –
(5) that is, to make the male and the female into a single one,
so that the male will not be male and the female will not be female –
(6) and when you make eyes instead of an eye
and a hand instead of a hand and a foot instead of a foot,
an image instead of an image, (7) then you will enter [the kingdom]."

2 Clement is considered by scholars to be an orthodox work however:

2 Clement is considered an orthodox work; however, no reputable scholar has ever considered it to be actually written by Clement, not even Eusebius, who makes the first mention of it in A.D. 323. In style, it is nothing like 1 Clement. It is only called 2 Clement because the 5th century Alexandrian manuscript includes it with 1 Clement as "the epistles of Clement."​

In a book called Thomas and the Evangelists, H. Montefiore and H.E.W. Turner suggest possible sources from which the Gospel of Thomas might be quoting:

If the hypothesis that Thomas is not dependent on the Synoptic Gospels is examined, the existence of other sources containing material similar to the canonical Gospels must be investigated. What sources would have been available to a writer between AD 150 and 200? The Gospel to the Hebrews was certainly in existence by the earlier date. Only fragments of this Gospel are extant. [The author say the Gospel of the Hebrews is quoted in Irenaeus, Against Heresies Bk. I, ch. 26, par. 2 and Bk. III, ch. 11, par. 7, but I was unable to find a reference to the Gospel of the Hebrews in either.] It is interesting that Clement of Alexandria on one occasion cites an agraphon [saying of Jesus] as though it belonged to Scripture [Stromata Bk. 5, ch. 14; search for "reign" on the page, and it will take you to the bottom of the 10th paragraph; I do not agree Clement treats this as Scripture], while on another occasion, he quotes the same agraphon in a slightly different form, giving the Gospel to the Hebrews as its origin [Stromata Bk. 2, ch. 9 is given in the text; the reference is at the end of the chapter. and I did find this at the end of the chapter]. This agraphon (again in slightly different forms) can be found both in the Oxyrhynchus fragment of Thomas and in the Coptic manuscript of the Gospel [and only in those two; for example, this English translation of the Gospel of Thomasdoes not have the saying]. It is therefore extremely probable that Thomas did make use of the Gospel of the Hebrews.
Thomas also has affinities to the Gospel of the Egyptians. This also was in existence before the end of the second century, for Clement of Alexandria quotes from it [Stromata Bk. 3. ch. 9; scroll down to find Chapter IX, and the quote is at the beginning]. Another citation of Clement has its counterpart in the Gospel of Thomas [Stromata Bk. III, ch. 13; scroll down to Chapter XIII in the previous link, and it is in the middle of the chapter; this one is similar to the passage in the Gospel of Thomas], and although it is difficult to determine the precise relationship here between Thomas and the Gospel to the Egyptians, it is probably that the former made use of the latter. Both were current in Egypt. (Brackets are my comments and links; parentheses are from original author.)​

The Gospel of Thomas Cited in 2 Clement

 

[ViaCrucis]

fake according to who?
they came later? Thomas is just as old if not older than the four canon.

There's no real evidence for that. Those who assign Thomas an early date tend to do so on the basis not of the text itself, but rather on the hypothesis that Thomas contains kernals of early material which were later added upon and expanded. It is unlikely that the Gospel of Thomas, as we have it, is much older than mid-late 2nd century, and a later 3rd century date is quite likely. Though it is possible that some of its logia are derived from earlier strata.

-CryptoLutheran