Gnostic Discussion

[jaybird88]

That's an interesting theory except that Gnosticism predates christianity.

are you referring to Essene theology?

 

[Goatee]

Gnosticism[edit]
The term "Gnosticism" does not appear in ancient sources,[6][note 10] and was first coined in the 17th Century by Henry More in a commentary on the seven letters of the Book of Revelation, where More used the term "Gnosticisme" to describe the heresy in Thyatira.[7][note 11] The term Gnosticism was derived from the use of the Greek adjective gnostikos (Greek γνωστικός, "learned," "intellectual") by St. Irenaeus (c. 185 AD) to describe the school of Valentinus as he legomene gnostike haeresis "the heresy called Learned (gnostic)."[8][note 12]

Gnosticism - Wikipedia

What is Christian Gnosticism?

 

[ViaCrucis]

are you referring to Essene theology?

The common hypothesis is that the Qumran community was an Essene community; but as far as I know there's no solid "proof" that this is the case.

"The Essenes have gained fame in modern times as a result of the discovery of an extensive group of religious documents known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are commonly believed to be the Essenes' library—although not conclusive." - Wikipedia

Attempting to identify an "Essene theology" is historically difficult at best; the only conclusive statements we have about them come from secondary sources, such as Philo of Alexandria and Josephus.

If the scrolls discovered near Qumran--the DSS--are a product of an Essene community, that certainly provides us with something; but the DSS do not provide us with a Gnostic theological system, but with an ascetic, apocalyptic Jewish theological system that conceived of itself as a remnant, pure Judaism apart from the corruption of the mainstream system, especially those powers in control of the Temple which were seen as illegitimate.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Gnosticism is not really a form of Christianity in my opinion. It is a syncretic religious tradition that borrows from all. Plotinus condemned the gnostics for perverting his teachings as much as the Christians did.
Once you read on Valentinianism with its syzygies and the pleoroma for instance, you reach a level where any connection to Christianity seems tenuous to non-existent.

The only surviving 'gnostic' sect is perhaps the Mandaeans in Iraq. They seem to fall quite beyond the pale.

And it's worth adding that the Mandaeans regard Jesus to have been a false prophet or messiah, and regard themselves followers of John the Baptist and that Jesus corrupted the original teachings of John.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Butch5]

What the gnostic books reveal is that the gnostic style of faith is a different way to be Christian. It is to reject the fundamentalist's way to simply "believe" and that is it! It rejects the Biblical literalists, rejects those who say just accept the Creeds, rejects those who say orthodox Christian doctrine explains it all. It is to reject those who say Christianity means accept Jesus or go to hell!

It promotes that Christ's intent was more a spiritual relationship to God rather than the establishment of a "belief system."

Rather the gnostic way to be Christian was a more spiritual path. Knowing Jesus preached in parables, not laying forth doctrines or creeds, opposing religious hard-liners, they believed his message was to open a way for persons to relate directly to God. His purpose was not to elevate or idolize the past, as Christianity has done essentially, but to declare a living relationship with the Spirit of God, available and open to all.

Which is why it was rejected by the early church.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

"Gnosticism" is an artificial umbrella term encompassing a wide range of divergent, independent world views.
Most of what we know about them, we know through the writings of their enemies.
It's like trying to learn about mainstream Christianity by going through polemics written against them in pagan Rome. ("The Christians are a deluded sect who engage in depraved underground orgies, talking about "love" and calling each other brothers and sisters all the time. It's also rumored that they drink the blood of their god in perverse rituals, joining them together in infamy. And their deity is an executed terrorist who tried to defy the Emperor.")
With some diligence, it is possible to extract the kernel of truth, but it also invites all sorts of projection - especially given that we are talking about VERY diverse groups.

It's easy to depict them as the kinder, saner version of Christianity, where women are treated as equals and faith is treated as something that must be experienced rather than taught. But that certainly doesn't hold true for *all* of them, nor can it be safely establish that any of these groups qualifies as "True Christianity" (tm).

Personally, I think that none of the Christian factions past the 1st century reflects the authentic version of the historical Jesus's teachings and theological positions. Even by the time the gospels and epistles were written, a new dynamic had created something else entirely.

 

[dlamberth]

Personally, I think that none of the Christian factions past the 1st century reflects the authentic version of the historical Jesus's teachings and theological positions. Even by the time the gospels and epistles were written, a new dynamic had created something else entirely.

I have to agree with Jane on this.

 

[Dr. Bill Thomas]

I apologize if i was not clear.

Gnosticism denies Jesus the Christ as being God Most High.

Does it not?



Let it rain.

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.

 

[Berl]

Gnosticism was simply syncretism. The Gnostic books do not show a "different way to be Christian," they show a different religion which adopted some Christian elements.

They all adopted from prior cultures christianity was no different, the phantoms of assumption teaches the christian dogma was some new revelation from God when it wasn't.

 

[brinny]

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.

Your opinion is noted.

Your complete avoidance of responding to what i said about Gnosticism's view on Jesus the Christ is also noted.

 

[Berl]

Since you're new here, you might want to check the Statement of Purpose for this forum, particularly the rule about promotion of non-Christian religions:

Statement of Purpose - Christianity and World Religion Statement of Purpose

Since you're new here, you might want to check the Statement of Purpose for this forum, particularly the rule about promotion of non-Christian religions:

Statement of Purpose - Christianity and World Religion Statement of Purpose

I wonder why traditional christian sites even have a section where their doctrine can be dissected by other views that challenge its viability, then complain about it when they do.

 

[Chesterton]

I wonder why traditional christian sites even have a section where their doctrine can be dissected by other views that challenge its viability, then complain about it when they do.

As I said, it's about "promotion", not dissection. There are other sections for dissection, but this isn't supposed to be one of them.

 

[jaybird88]

I apologize if i was not clear.

Gnosticism denies Jesus the Christ as being God Most High.

Does it not?



Let it rain.

Gnosticism denies a man made doctrine, and what does that mean?

 

[Berl]

As I said, it's about "promotion", not dissection. There are other sections for dissection, but this isn't supposed to be one of them.

Might as well goggle it because a discussion without content is a oxymoron. This is a common denominator most christian forums operate under in their vague religious sections.

 

[Chesterton]

Okay, well, I guess you should take it up with the owners of most Christian forums then.

 

[jacks]

Might as well goggle it because a discussion without content is a oxymoron. This is a common denominator most christian forums operate under in their vague religious sections.

Not to make too fine a point, but the post he was referring to, wasn't a discussion; it was an unreferenced cut and paste from THIS site.

 

[mark kennedy]

What the gnostic books reveal is that the gnostic style of faith is a different way to be Christian. It is to reject the fundamentalist's way to simply "believe" and that is it! It rejects the Biblical literalists, rejects those who say just accept the Creeds, rejects those who say orthodox Christian doctrine explains it all. It is to reject those who say Christianity means accept Jesus or go to hell!

It promotes that Christ's intent was more a spiritual relationship to God rather than the establishment of a "belief system."

Rather the gnostic way to be Christian was a more spiritual path. Knowing Jesus preached in parables, not laying forth doctrines or creeds, opposing religious hard-liners, they believed his message was to open a way for persons to relate directly to God. His purpose was not to elevate or idolize the past, as Christianity has done essentially, but to declare a living relationship with the Spirit of God, available and open to all.

Gnosticism was a pagan mysticism that believed the material world was corrupted and only the Spirit was pure. Its goal is a state known as enlightenment, as it is with virtually all mystics. It was not unlike popular mystery religions that would teach initiates certain things in the form on memorizing questions and answers. Gnostic writings were prolific down through the centuries but the vital foundation of Christian Scripture is Apostolic doctrine. The Christian Scriptures like the Hebrew Scriptures are living testimonies in that they have been attached to living communities their entire history, the Hebrew and Christian communities respectively.

I remember the gospel according to Judas emerged in an Eqyptian curio shop and was unveiled as an alternative to traditional Christianity, on Easter. That's a pattern with Gnostic writings, they turn up out of no where and challenged established Christian doctrine.

Christian faith is built on the gospel, as reflected in their teachings recorded in the New Testament. What you do or do not believe is a very big deal.

Having believed you were marked with a seal, the Holy Spirit of promise Paul tells us in the opening chapter of Ephesians. And as Jesus told Nicodemus, whosoever believes in him (Christ) shall have eternal life.

 

[2tim_215]

Are you claiming that Gnosticism (a very generic term) that it predates Christianity is Christian (which means it would have to be Christian before Christ even existed)????
Unless you happen to be referring to the Essenes (which in a sense were "gnosticlike") but who we all know disappeared/perished? I think you need to define what you mean by gnostics Doc. Would you consider Origen one (some say the father of Gnosticism who I know came after the church)? Edit: BTW, when I refer to the church, I do not refer to Roman Catholicism which came about after the original churches of whom all the Epistles were written to.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Are you claiming that Gnosticism (a very generic term) that it predates Christianity is Christian (which means it would have to be Christian before Christ even existed)????
Unless you happen to be referring to the Essenes (which in a sense were "gnosticlike") but who we all know disappeared/perished? I think you need to define what you mean by gnostics Doc. Would you consider Origen one (some say the father of Gnosticism who I know came after the church)? Edit: BTW, when I refer to the church, I do not refer to Roman Catholicism which came about after the original churches of whom all the Epistles were written to.

Origen wasn't Gnostic, and certainly wasn't the father of Gnosticism because Gnosticism had existed well before Origen was even born. Origen was an orthodox Christian and head of the catechetical school in Alexandria who, in some of his writings, put forward some thoughts which were controversial, or at least controversial in the years following his death. Origen's reputation was besmirched because some later people adhered to ideas which Origen never had but used his name on account that he was a widely respected theologian in antiquity. These later "Origenists" became a source by which Origen was ultimately condemned by some (but not all). One of the key aspects of Origen's ruined reputation comes from several anti-Origenist canons which are spuriously attributed to the Second Council of Constantinople.

If one goes online to look up Origen there is, unfortunately, a great deal of misinformation out there in the cyber aether. One example is often claimed that Origen taught and believed in reincarnation, except that not only did Origen never teach reincarnation in any of his writings, he explicitly rejects reincarnation as heretical in his writings,

"What credibility, forsooth, has the erroneous opinion, whether of Herod or of some of the people, that John and Jesus were not two persons, but that it was one and the same person John who rose from the dead after he had been beheaded and was called Jesus? Some one might say, however, that Herod and some of those people held the false dogma of the transmigration of souls into bodies, in consequence of which they thought the former John had appeared again by a fresh birth, and had come from the dead into life as Jesus. BUt the time between the birth of John and the birth of Jesus, which was not more than six months, does not permit this false opinion to be considered credible." Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Book X, ch. 20

"I have thought it necessary to dwell some time on the examination of the doctrine of transmigration, because the suspicion of some who suppose that the soul under consideration was the same in Elijah and in John, becing called in the former case Elijah, and in the second case John; and that, not apart from God, had he been called John, as is plain from the saying of the angel who appeared to Zacharias, 'Fear not, Zacharias, for your supplication is heard, and your wife Elizabeth shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name John;' and from the fact that Zacharias regained his speech after he had written in the tablet, that he who had been born should be called John. But if it were the soul of Elijah, then, when he was begotten a second time, he should have been called Elijah; or for the change of name some reason should have been assigned, as in the case of Abram and Abraham, Sarah and Sarrah, Jacob and Israel, Simon and Peter. And yet not even thus would their argument in the case be tenable; for, in the case of the aforesaid, the changes of name took place in one and the same life. But some one might ask, if the soul of Elijah was not first in the Tishbite and secondly in John, what might that be in both which the Savior called Elijah? And I say that Gabriel in his words to Zacharias suggested what the substance was in Elijah and John that was the same; for he says, 'Many of the children of Israel shall be turned to the Lord their God; and he shall go before his face in the spirit and power of Elijah.' For, observe, he did not say in the 'soul' of Elijah, in which case the doctrine of transmigration might have some ground, but 'in the spirit and power of Elijah.' For the Scripture well knows the distinction between spirit and soul, as, 'May God sanctify you wholly, and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ;' and the passage, 'Bless the Lord, you spirits and souls of the righteous' as it stands in the book of Daniel, according to the Septuagint, represents the difference between spirit and soul. Elijah, therefore, was not called John because of the soul, but because of the spirit and the power, which in no way conflicts with the teaching of the Church, though they were formerly in Elijah, and afterwards in John; ... and 'the spirit of Elijah rested on Elisha.'" - ibid. Book XIII, ch. 2

Origen very explicitly denies reincarnation, and instead argues that John had the "spirit and power of Elijah" in a similar way as had when Elijah's mantle had been passed on to Elisha.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dlamberth]

Are you claiming that Gnosticism (a very generic term) that it predates Christianity is Christian (which means it would have to be Christian before Christ even existed)????
Unless you happen to be referring to the Essenes (which in a sense were "gnosticlike") but who we all know disappeared/perished? I think you need to define what you mean by gnostics Doc. Would you consider Origen one (some say the father of Gnosticism who I know came after the church)? Edit: BTW, when I refer to the church, I do not refer to Roman Catholicism which came about after the original churches of whom all the Epistles were written to.

Yes, gnosticism as a way of knowing is way, way older than Christianity. But hat gnosticism is generally spelled with a small (g). Gnosticism is wisdom gained via direct inner experience. In the spiritual world, it's the realm of the mystics. Other than reading Elaine Pagel's "The Gnostic Gospels", I know very little about Gnostic Christianity. But I would guess that in practice, gnosticism (little g) would be a part of their spiritual life.