"The Gospel of Marcion"

[Xpistis sopheiaX]

It all comes down to one verse in the single Gnostic text that made the Christian Bible. John 17:3 Direct knowledge of God through Jesus Christ.

This is off-topic but how do we know John is Gnostic? Intuitively it seems Gnostic, but I was wondering if there is any specific evidence?

Pagels seemed to think that it directly refuted The Gospel of Thomas or has she been proven wrong?

 

[ElijahW]

I read this today and thought it was relevant to the idea of the visionary or imaginal body of the ressurection:

Not dualism but some kind of Threeism? There is matter and there is spirit and then there is a combination, I'll call spatter? I personally view the world that we see in front of us, as the product of the unification between spirit and matter. Do you think this world of spatter is a spacial temporal world like this one? Just vibrating at a frequency out of our perception or something?

 

[ElijahW]

But that is a matter of belief. If I say that Jesus never existed, or insisted that He did, in either case I would be bearing false witness. I was not there.

If you say you know then yes that would be lying but if you have reasonable belief for one of the other then that is what you will believe and to say otherwise would be bearing false witness. This is about which beliefs are reasonable. If you have reason to believe that Jesus didn’t exist that exceeds the reasons you have to believe he did then you should go with that.

Similarly if you have reasons to believe that life is possible to be continued after you die from studying gnosis, then get studying. If you are going off the beliefs of others that gnosis is going to save you, then you need to maybe look back at what reasons you have to not believe in the possibility of literal eternal life and a literal resurrection being possible in the future. We live in a completely different time now so the idea that matter can’t be adjusted to accommodate eternal life shouldn’t be an issue. It could be a minor adjustment to the DNA they discover that solves the aging problem.

The scriptures in the bible are a catholic interpretation of events, in that the selection supports a catholic position, were selected by catholics, to promote catholicism, which sought to integrate as many different schools into one as possible.

Yes they are the catholic interpretation and they did try to keep the group as universal as possible. Except when people went against that principle and said, no, salvation is only for those who know this or act that way.

The catholic position, is that Jesus supreme sacrifice was made on the cross. The Gnostic position, is that Jesus supreme sacrifice was to leave the heavens and enter the world of death.

The catholic position is that Jesus died to pay for our sins in a vicarious atonement. The Gnostic position is that Jesus did not stay dead, so there was no payment. Never the less, we accept His blood as the symbol of what all mankind is expected to do---no one gets in to see the King without it.

The catholic position is that God demanded the sacrifice of His own Son. The Gnostic position is that the powers of evil conspired to bring about His untimely demise, not knowing that He would be able to defeat death.

You would need to actually explain what those statements mean to you and then explain why you don’t think they are reasonable beliefs to have. I can only make assumptions about what you think they are saying.

The Gnostic position is that Jesus wasn't going to skip dying, because everything that lives here dies. The nails are driven into our wrist as soon as we crack our mother's womb. Jesus was both man enough and God enough to face it. His body, or " the slave" died, but He did not. He defeated death, showing that it can be defeated.

Yes the Gnostics who weren’t doectic Gnostics probably thought he just didn’t care about dying. They don’t understand the point of the sacrifice as an attempt to establish a new kind of kingdom on earth.

We look to the knowledge that He brought about God, as our healing salve. We don't have to fear our Father, because our Father loves us; we take care not to pollute that inheritance.

What does this knowledge about God do? Is it the key to the spiritual realm after you die? Or does that particular belief about God cause good ethical behavior?

Imitation is the sincerest form of worship. Look no further than your teen children for verification.

I agree about imitation but I do believe that a person of intellect needs to do more than just imitate, but instead actually understand what the person in question is trying to accomplish. You don’t want to just be sheep.

 

[Xpistis sopheiaX]

What does this knowledge about God do? Is it the key to the spiritual realm after you die? Or does that particular belief about God cause good ethical behavior?

I think Gnosis is multiple things, but ultimately freedom from the prison of this world which is ruled by satan or yaldabaoth and his archons. Much of the world is an illusion or composed of illusions. Gnosis provides freedom from that.

It also helps direct our actions as we are to become a "Christ" or become a proxy of Christ in the world.

I think it is part of the metamorphosis of Christians as they are crucified to the world and resurrected to the kingdom of God that exists in the here and now.

I do not consider Gnosticism a "mystery religion" where esoteric teachings are passed down in private among a select few (as I think it has been portrayed in the National Geographic book on the Gospel of Judas, or other media).

I think Elaine Pagels is very eloquent in describing the process of Gnosis in her book "Beyond Belief." Gnosis is a spiritual process and it is "spiritual knowledge" given to the individual by Christ/Sophia/divine God, and it is not a specific teaching passed down from texts or people.

I think a few pretty common descriptions of Gnosis are: "head-knowledge becoming heart-knowledge," and "Once I was blind, but now I can see." So it is not necessarily something radically different than what is happening in orthodox Christianity, but I think a different perspective or description of some of the same phenomena.

Is Gnosis the key to the spiritual realm after you die? Salvation comes from/through Christ so yes I think so; however I don't think it necessarily a different experience than salvation in Orthodox Christianity. However the theology and perspective is different.

I don't really believe in a literal Hell for nonbelievers, as many other Gnostics do not either. However I think Gnosis is relieves us from the very real Hell that exists in this world, and the Hell that we create for ourselves. In the next life? I'll leave those details up to God.

 

[Soulgazer]

This is off-topic but how do we know John is Gnostic? Intuitively it seems Gnostic, but I was wondering if there is any specific evidence?

Pagels seemed to think that it directly refuted The Gospel of Thomas or has she been proven wrong?

It was not accepted at first because it was Gnostic. It was finally accepted into the canon because of it's literary value, but not without a hard fight. The Thomasines were the orthodox when the johnnites and thomasines were going head to head. But of course that was much earlier than the development of a canon.

 

[Soulgazer]

If you say you know then yes that would be lying but if you have reasonable belief for one of the other then that is what you will believe and to say otherwise would be bearing false witness. This is about which beliefs are reasonable. If you have reason to believe that Jesus didn’t exist that exceeds the reasons you have to believe he did then you should go with that.

Similarly if you have reasons to believe that life is possible to be continued after you die from studying gnosis, then get studying. If you are going off the beliefs of others that gnosis is going to save you, then you need to maybe look back at what reasons you have to not believe in the possibility of literal eternal life and a literal resurrection being possible in the future. We live in a completely different time now so the idea that matter can’t be adjusted to accommodate eternal life shouldn’t be an issue. It could be a minor adjustment to the DNA they discover that solves the aging problem.

Yes they are the catholic interpretation and they did try to keep the group as universal as possible. Except when people went against that principle and said, no, salvation is only for those who know this or act that way.

You would need to actually explain what those statements mean to you and then explain why you don’t think they are reasonable beliefs to have. I can only make assumptions about what you think they are saying.

Yes the Gnostics who weren’t doectic Gnostics probably thought he just didn’t care about dying. They don’t understand the point of the sacrifice as an attempt to establish a new kind of kingdom on earth.

What does this knowledge about God do? Is it the key to the spiritual realm after you die? Or does that particular belief about God cause good ethical behavior?

I agree about imitation but I do believe that a person of intellect needs to do more than just imitate, but instead actually understand what the person in question is trying to accomplish. You don’t want to just be sheep.

That's what the Gnostic faith is all about. Each and everyone of these questions has an answer, but the answer must be found by the person seeking. The worst imaginable outcome would be if I told you who God was, and you believed me. Instead, as a Gnostic pastor, it is my Job to teach the steps to find God so that you may see His reality for yourself.

What is reasonable, in a metaphysical reality? I have healed people instantly myself, so I know it is not impossible. Other than Criss Angel walking on submerged plexiglass, I have never seen anyone walk on water. Is it reasonable? How about coming back from the dead? Did the spear thrust save Jesus and is His tomb really in India? Or did He ascend in a cloud? If that is possible, then what else is possible? Jesus said we could do all He did and more. Did a shamen really feed a crowd of 5000 in India in 1970? Reason has it's limits. I tell you what I know. I tell you what I follow. What I believe is done by informed choice based on limited reason, and so belief is kept in a separate box, labeled "tools for personal growth", where I hope to use it in a reasonable manner.

We use all of the Jesus mythologies at our disposal; but we have to first understand who wrote what and why. Together they form a composite of beliefs.---but to one person the Gospel of Matthew will speak the loudest, or another time the Gospel of Truth. It is sometimes necessary to impassionately dissect the writings before gleaning the pearls from them. It's not a case, for us, that it is written, so it must be so. It never has been in our two thousand year on again off again history.

We don't care what the mainstream thinks. Everybody may decide to jump off the bridge at the same time--- The purpose of gnosis is to free one from the Archons of fate. So if we end up jumping off a bridge, it will be because we ourselves made that decision fully informed.

If Jesus was the Messiah, and we believe He was even as the catholic claim, then He knew about dying when He entered this world of death. Crucifixion? Horrible. A broken back, slowly dying of neglect? Just as horrible. Unfairly convicted? We all are. You are condemned to death just for being born.

Tell me, have you ever considered what would have happened to Jesus had He been found innocent at His trial? What would He have died of? Old age? Disease? Accident? Murder? Can you really call yourself a Christian if His teachings would appear less important?

These are important meditation questions. If Jesus was the "Son of Man" then what He did as a man is possible and desirable for all of us. We believe Jesus died because of our sinful nature, not to appease an angry God, but because we are so sinful as a race that we can't imagine anything other than an Angry God. So when some Land grabbing warlord, says to us, "God is angry with you", we tend to fall in line, and commit every atrocity under the sun in the name of that Angry God. As a race, we are idiots. We grab at "prophesy" and "mysticism" as if they were real, and in so doing, conform them to our beliefs so that we can no longer discern truth.

No sign is given, except the sign of Jonah, and the head of prophesy was cut off with the baptist. So as a trained Gnostic, no Jos. Smiths, no Jim Jones, No David Koresh. No "revelation" or any other pretentious nonsense.

 

[Xpistis sopheiaX]

It was not accepted at first because it was Gnostic. It was finally accepted into the canon because of it's literary value, but not without a hard fight. The Thomasines were the orthodox when the johnnites and thomasines were going head to head. But of course that was much earlier than the development of a canon.

This is fascinating to me. Do you know off-hand of any good books or articles I can read about this?

 

[Soulgazer]

This is fascinating to me. Do you know off-hand of any good books or articles I can read about this?

You could try earlychristianwritings.com for a list of sources.

 

[Noxot]

there are always gonna be people that say "i am this" and there are always gonna be people that lie "I am this". i have a hard time seeing who is who. i'm guessing if i am worthy that the guy that kills me will not know the truth.

thanks to the lies and other vices, we have confusion and a lot of work has to be done to fix the problem. same old story.

so many different beliefs there are with those who say they follow Jesus. there has got to be a better and faster way of dealing with this insane world than what we humans have been doing. enoch had perfectly good eyes imo, and so did other certain people. if only we could be like those people, i know everything would be so clear. they saw past this foolish world and i hope that i can one day too.

this world is so useless. i don't get why i get so trapped in it.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

There have been Gnostics who viewed matter as a necessity for the manifestation of God. The problem is more with conscious beings living in the material state. Take the Hermetic ("Pagan" Gnostic) myth in this area for example. In the beginning of manifestation there was both light and darkness. The darkness really wasn't a problem in and of itself. It was only when the Primal Man saw his reflection in the darkness and taken in by it came down and occupied that state. That's when the pain and suffering started.

It's possible that manifestation is only possible by opposites. So darkness is a necessary component of manifestation. Jacob Boehme and Rumi taught this way and I believe it is also a common view in Jewish Gnosticism (Kabbalah). The tragedy is that we are actually living in it. The cure is the separation / transcendence that will one day be brought about in ourselves. Then the darkness will be off by itself doing it's necessary role without hurting anyone.

Personally I'm still debating these things with myself. I'll let everyone know when I have it all figured out lol.

 

[ElijahW]

I think Gnosis is multiple things, but ultimately freedom from the prison of this world which is ruled by satan or yaldabaoth and his archons. Much of the world is an illusion or composed of illusions. Gnosis provides freedom from that.

It also helps direct our actions as we are to become a "Christ" or become a proxy of Christ in the world.

I think it is part of the metamorphosis of Christians as they are crucified to the world and resurrected to the kingdom of God that exists in the here and now.

The question is what is the point of manifesting the spirit of Christ in the world? Is it an attempt to establish the kingdom of God that is here and now on earth? Or is it the factor necessary for admittance to the kingdom after we die?

I do not consider Gnosticism a "mystery religion" where esoteric teachings are passed down in private among a select few (as I think it has been portrayed in the National Geographic book on the Gospel of Judas, or other media).

I think Elaine Pagels is very eloquent in describing the process of Gnosis in her book "Beyond Belief." Gnosis is a spiritual process and it is "spiritual knowledge" given to the individual by Christ/Sophia/divine God, and it is not a specific teaching passed down from texts or people.

Should that be understood as learning to think rationally? I assume that because if it’s a process, I doubt it’s an experience you have, that gives you knowledge that a spiritual element exists.

I think a few pretty common descriptions of Gnosis are: "head-knowledge becoming heart-knowledge," and "Once I was blind, but now I can see." So it is not necessarily something radically different than what is happening in orthodox Christianity, but I think a different perspective or description of some of the same phenomena.

What is happening within catholic Christianity?

Is Gnosis the key to the spiritual realm after you die? Salvation comes from/through Christ so yes I think so; however I don't think it necessarily a different experience than salvation in Orthodox Christianity. However the theology and perspective is different.
I don't really believe in a literal Hell for nonbelievers, as many other Gnostics do not either. However I think Gnosis is relieves us from the very real Hell that exists in this world, and the Hell that we create for ourselves. In the next life? I'll leave those details up to God.

What kind of salvation are we talking about? Do you think the Gnostics were for the resurrection of the dead or that the catholics have been misunderstood for that belief?

Or maybe Gnosis isn’t the key to salvation in the next life, it’s just advice to help make this life more bearable?

 

[ElijahW]

That's what the Gnostic faith is all about. Each and everyone of these questions has an answer, but the answer must be found by the person seeking. The worst imaginable outcome would be if I told you who God was, and you believed me. Instead, as a Gnostic pastor, it is my Job to teach the steps to find God so that you may see His reality for yourself.

Yeah that would be the worst. But if you could explain the reasons you hold to belief in a particular God, then I can understand why that position is rational and maybe increase my own ability to reason. The idea of me just believing you or anyone isn’t going to happen. This conversation wouldn’t be happening if I didn’t come to my conclusions thru reason, but just believing whatever I was told.

No offense intended but I don’t feel that you don’t need to teach me the steps to find God. That was taught to me by my parents, who taught me to think rationally and for myself. I’m not looking for a teacher. What I am looking for is family, who was raised like I was, and so they think like I do. Rationally and compassionately.

What is reasonable, in a metaphysical reality? I have healed people instantly myself, so I know it is not impossible. Other than Criss Angel walking on submerged plexiglass, I have never seen anyone walk on water. Is it reasonable? How about coming back from the dead? Did the spear thrust save Jesus and is His tomb really in India? Or did He ascend in a cloud? If that is possible, then what else is possible? Jesus said we could do all He did and more. Did a shamen really feed a crowd of 5000 in India in 1970? Reason has it's limits. I tell you what I know. I tell you what I follow. What I believe is done by informed choice based on limited reason, and so belief is kept in a separate box, labeled "tools for personal growth", where I hope to use it in a reasonable manner.

If the miracles aren’t rational to you, then don’t believe them, or take them allegorically. They are not integral to my beliefs so I don’t see any reason why they should be for you to consider the catholic position.

We use all of the Jesus mythologies at our disposal; but we have to first understand who wrote what and why. Together they form a composite of beliefs.---but to one person the Gospel of Matthew will speak the loudest, or another time the Gospel of Truth. It is sometimes necessary to impassionately dissect the writings before gleaning the pearls from them. It's not a case, for us, that it is written, so it must be so. It never has been in our two thousand year on again off again history.

Yes you need to understand why the texts were written. Why do you think the gospels is the NT were written and how does that goal differ from the intent of the Gnostic gospels?

We don't care what the mainstream thinks. Everybody may decide to jump off the bridge at the same time--- The purpose of gnosis is to free one from the Archons of fate. So if we end up jumping off a bridge, it will be because we ourselves made that decision fully informed.

I don’t know what mainstream thinking would be. Sounds like a strawman.

If Jesus was the Messiah, and we believe He was even as the catholic claim, then He knew about dying when He entered this world of death. Crucifixion? Horrible. A broken back, slowly dying of neglect? Just as horrible. Unfairly convicted? We all are. You are condemned to death just for being born.

No. The Gnostics consider him the messiah, as a messenger of a particular teaching. The catholic understanding is that he was the messiah, as in the expected king of Israel. Same word use, two totally different meanings.

Anyone can die of disease and old age. Sacrificing your life, in your prime, for your fellow man, puts you in rare company. And if there is intent behind that sacrifice, it should be understood. The idea he just didn’t care enough about life to live, is a headshaker.

Tell me, have you ever considered what would have happened to Jesus had He been found innocent at His trial? What would He have died of? Old age? Disease? Accident? Murder? Can you really call yourself a Christian if His teachings would appear less important?

I have considered it and I think that Jesus would have been killed a short time later, when Rome came in to quash any uprising that Jesus’ popularity was bringing. He would have died along with his family, loved ones and anyone who cared for him. There was no old age possible for Jesus once John said he was the expected king.

His teachings are of no importance, compared to understanding the sacrifice and recognizing him as Lord. To think that the ethical teachings are why he died, makes you look like a legalist, and thinking that the metaphysical teachings are the key issue, makes you look Gnostic.

These are important meditation questions. If Jesus was the "Son of Man" then what He did as a man is possible and desirable for all of us. We believe Jesus died because of our sinful nature, not to appease an angry God, but because we are so sinful as a race that we can't imagine anything other than an Angry God. So when some Land grabbing warlord, says to us, "God is angry with you", we tend to fall in line, and commit every atrocity under the sun in the name of that Angry God. As a race, we are idiots. We grab at "prophesy" and "mysticism" as if they were real, and in so doing, conform them to our beliefs so that we can no longer discern truth.

It’s not to appease an angry God over here either. It’s to establish the kingdom of God on earth. That is in an extremely superstitious understanding of God you are assuming of the other position... which is of course a fallacy. You need to understand the catholic position from an educated and rational standpoint before you can argue against it. If you are just arguing against what you heard in the “mainstream” then you desperately need to reexamine the catholic faith from a more rational perspective.

Do you believe that religious scripture should be taken literal and maybe that is why you aren’t interpreting the catholic position rationally?

No sign is given, except the sign of Jonah, and the head of prophesy was cut off with the baptist. So as a trained Gnostic, no Jos. Smiths, no Jim Jones, No David Koresh. No "revelation" or any other pretentious nonsense.

I think part of the problem is that you aren’t exercising your prophetic/foresight abilities when examining these concepts. You have to be able to look forward and contemplate the outcome of your actions to know what action you should take now. And you need to be able to play out what the outcome would be if each religion got what he was trying to accomplish. That way you can make a decision on which plan you should be putting your efforts into making a reality.

What does the sign of Jonah mean to you? For me it is about faith spreading out from one individual (Jesus) to a whole nation from peasant(Peter) to king (Constantine).

 

[Xpistis sopheiaX]

The question is what is the point of manifesting the spirit of Christ in the world? Is it an attempt to establish the kingdom of God that is here and now on earth? Or is it the factor necessary for admittance to the kingdom after we die?

Should that be understood as learning to think rationally? I assume that because if it’s a process, I doubt it’s an experience you have, that gives you knowledge that a spiritual element exists.

What is happening within catholic Christianity?

What kind of salvation are we talking about? Do you think the Gnostics were for the resurrection of the dead or that the catholics have been misunderstood for that belief?

Or maybe Gnosis isn’t the key to salvation in the next life, it’s just advice to help make this life more bearable?

I may not have the best answers for you since I can only speak for myself. I am not a scholar by any means, and I can only speak to my own experience as I consider meditating/prayer more important than studying.

In Gnosticism the kingdom of God is already on the earth in the here and now. I don't necessarily worry so much about what God wants me to do to "get into heaven" as I believe Orthodox Christianity is focused too much on fear of Hell and not embodying the will of Christ for the sake of love/duty/loyalty/morality/righteousness etc.

I'm more concerned with trying to live the life that Christ desires for me to live and that is not in a legalistic sense of morality either. It is, for lack of a better term, to "actualize" my true self spiritually and otherwise so I can best serve God.

I'll let God work out the details of the after life. Some Gnostics believed in reincarnation, which I don't necessarily, but it makes more sense than banishing people to Hell. From what I understand in Gnosticism there are three types of people: Gnostics, Christians who are saved by the law, and hylics who are bound to the fate of the archons. The last are either reincarnated to do things over, or abolished to outer darkness, where I think their souls dissolve and they vanish. You might ask Soulgazer about this. I know enough to be dangerous but I don't have a great grasp of these type of details.

If you consider "salvation" a one-time thing I think that is accurate to say about receiving Gnosis. However I consider living with that Gnosis a continual process. You could consider it learning to live rationally. Gnostics were very concerned with the rational thinking of Neo-Platonism, and receiving Gnosis is certainly something that would reveal to you truths that help guide your actions in certain respects.

I don't really have a great understanding of Catholicism, but I believe many Catholics are true Christians in the way that many Gnostics are also true Christians. Gnosis is a description of a process not something that only people who consider themselves "Gnostic" receive.

As far as what "kind" of salvation Gnostics believed in, I can only speak for myself. As Paul says (I can't remember how he puts it exactly) first we receive the milk of the gospel and then the meat. I don't think we spit the "milk" out once we are eating the "meat."

So I don't think Gnosticism is rejecting Orthodox Christianity as much as it is learning layers of meanings and multiple perspectives. Also I think the scholar April DeConick wrote somewhat recently that "Gnostics" met in proto-Orthodox churches and later with other Gnostics in lodges. I think this a pretty good model for Gnostic Christianity, and one that we even basically share today (meeting in orthodox churches, and chatting amongst ourselves on the internet). So I don't know that Gnosticism was about rejecting Orthodox Christianity (although I'm sure it was for some like the authors of the Gospel of Judas) but finding a place within it. Maybe I'm completely wrong there; but that is my take on things.

Solomon wrote: "it is good to reach with one hand while holding on with the other; a righteous man avoids all extremes." I like to learn from both Orthodox Christianity and Gnosticism so I can find the path most suitable for myself.

I personally believe in both a physical and a spiritual resurrection, but once again, I'm not as worried about that as I am other things.

I hope that is helpful

 

[Soulgazer]

Yes you need to understand why the texts were written. Why do you think the gospels is the NT were written and how does that goal differ from the intent of the Gnostic gospels?

Good stuff above from xPistis





Each text has a differing reason; sometimes the lines in the particular text. i.e. Matthew being composed by a Messianic Jew in Antioch, made a pointed dig at Paul, who taught there thirty years earlier. The Author of Philip made a pointed dig at Matthew for saying the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. Everything written is always in disagreement with somebody else. Sometimes very heated, as in Galatians, or the Testimony of Truth.

No. The Gnostics consider him the messiah, as a messenger of a particular teaching. The catholic understanding is that he was the messiah, as in the expected king of Israel. Same word use, two totally different meanings.

LOL, who is the Gnostic here, me or you? The expected king of Israel was supposed to be a sword swinging Conan that would rip Rome apart and make her sorry that she had messed with the "chosen". We see how well that worked out. The answer is quite obvious,(to us). The True God subverted the Jewish Prophesies to send His Son to teach. Ol' Yaltoboath is too jealous to have a son.

Anyone can die of disease and old age. Sacrificing your life, in your prime, for your fellow man, puts you in rare company. And if there is intent behind that sacrifice, it should be understood. The idea he just didn’t care enough about life to live, is a headshaker.

Maybe I hadn't made myself clear. We are born, we have a life filled with pain and disease, accident, war, execution, murder----we die. All this taking place on an unstable ball full of a whole host of deadly disasters, in a competitive environment where nothing, absolutely nothing, can live without the destruction of something else. Are you going to stand there with hat in hand and say "please sir, may I have some more?",as if being allowed to pick cotton for massa was the greatest gift imaginable? This is what Jesus came to save us from.

I have considered it and I think that Jesus would have been killed a short time later, when Rome came in to quash any uprising that Jesus’ popularity was bringing. He would have died along with his family, loved ones and anyone who cared for him. There was no old age possible for Jesus once John said he was the expected king.

His teachings are of no importance, compared to understanding the sacrifice and recognizing him as Lord. To think that the ethical teachings are why he died, makes you look like a legalist, and thinking that the metaphysical teachings are the key issue, makes you look Gnostic.

I am Gnostic. As such, saying that the teachings of Jesus is not as important, is not only wrong, but potentially soul-killing wrong. This is the Son of the True God, sent to wash away all the garbage we had been believing for the last Milena. To quote Hebrews "[SIZE=-1]6:1[/SIZE]Wherefore leaving the doctrine of the first principles of Christ, let us press on unto perfection; not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, [SIZE=-1]6:2[/SIZE]of the teaching of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. [SIZE=-1]6:3[/SIZE]And this will we do, if God permit."

It’s not to appease an angry God over here either. It’s to establish the kingdom of God on earth. That is in an extremely superstitious understanding of God you are assuming of the other position... which is of course a fallacy. You need to understand the catholic position from an educated and rational standpoint before you can argue against it. If you are just arguing against what you heard in the “mainstream” then you desperately need to reexamine the catholic faith from a more rational perspective.

Don't confuse catholic with Catholic. Baptist are catholic. Pentecostals are catholic.

Do you believe that religious scripture should be taken literal and maybe that is why you aren’t interpreting the catholic position rationally?

I think part of the problem is that you aren’t exercising your prophetic/foresight abilities when examining these concepts. You have to be able to look forward and contemplate the outcome of your actions to know what action you should take now. And you need to be able to play out what the outcome would be if each religion got what he was trying to accomplish. That way you can make a decision on which plan you should be putting your efforts into making a reality.

What does the sign of Jonah mean to you? For me it is about faith spreading out from one individual (Jesus) to a whole nation from peasant(Peter) to king (Constantine).

Well, from my perspective I don't have any problem at all No on the literalism. Gnostics were the first mythocist. We do believe that the head of Prophesy was cut off with the Baptist, and that the Christ during the three days before the physical resurrection(sign of jonah) was quite busy removing a third of the power from astrologers and soothsayers. We have other sayings about the Kingdom of God growing one person at a time. The unfolding of the future will always be a mystery, because Jesus made it that way, cf pistis sophia. A better answer is found in Thomas:
18. The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us, how will our end come?"
Jesus said, "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is.
Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."

 

[ElijahW]

I may not have the best answers for you since I can only speak for myself. I am not a scholar by any means, and I can only speak to my own experience as I consider meditating/prayer more important than studying.

In Gnosticism the kingdom of God is already on the earth in the here and now. I don't necessarily worry so much about what God wants me to do to "get into heaven" as I believe Orthodox Christianity is focused too much on fear of Hell and not embodying the will of Christ for the sake of love/duty/loyalty/morality/righteousness etc.

I'm more concerned with trying to live the life that Christ desires for me to live and that is not in a legalistic sense of morality either. It is, for lack of a better term, to "actualize" my true self spiritually and otherwise so I can best serve God.

You want to do what you can do to fix the world, right?

The idea of studying philosophy to save your soul, and this world being irredeemable, isn’t something you agree with from the Gnostics.

I'll let God work out the details of the after life. Some Gnostics believed in reincarnation, which I don't necessarily, but it makes more sense than banishing people to Hell. From what I understand in Gnosticism there are three types of people: Gnostics, Christians who are saved by the law, and hylics who are bound to the fate of the archons. The last are either reincarnated to do things over, or abolished to outer darkness, where I think their souls dissolve and they vanish. You might ask Soulgazer about this. I know enough to be dangerous but I don't have a great grasp of these type of details.

Hell has a lot of interpretations so which one doesn’t makes sense would need to be clarified. While I don’t believe in a spiritual realm where the wicked are punished eternally, I do believe in the resurrection of the dead. I think that when this happens, it’s going to be a very different experience for a good person who is being reunited with their loved ones. Than someone who meeting up with the extended families of people they killed and persecuted.

I agree that the details of the afterlife are impossible to know for certain. But, the basic question of is the afterlife going to be here and we need to start fixing this place to accomidate that, or is it in another realm someplace else more perfect than this world and we shouldn’t worry about this world. Other than teaching the gnosis that helps everyone’s soul escape.

Small note; Ebionites are the only major Christian sect that is saved by the law. The catholics are saved by faith.

If you consider "salvation" a one-time thing I think that is accurate to say about receiving Gnosis. However I consider living with that Gnosis a continual process. You could consider it learning to live rationally. Gnostics were very concerned with the rational thinking of Neo-Platonism, and receiving Gnosis is certainly something that would reveal to you truths that help guide your actions in certain respects.

I don't really have a great understanding of Catholicism, but I believe many Catholics are true Christians in the way that many Gnostics are also true Christians. Gnosis is a description of a process not something that only people who consider themselves "Gnostic" receive.

Should we consider it like “faith” that is received and it is faith that defines the true Gnostic and the true Catholic?

As far as what "kind" of salvation Gnostics believed in, I can only speak for myself. As Paul says (I can't remember how he puts it exactly) first we receive the milk of the gospel and then the meat. I don't think we spit the "milk" out once we are eating the "meat."

So I don't think Gnosticism is rejecting Orthodox Christianity as much as it is learning layers of meanings and multiple perspectives. Also I think the scholar April DeConick wrote somewhat recently that "Gnostics" met in proto-Orthodox churches and later with other Gnostics in lodges. I think this a pretty good model for Gnostic Christianity, and one that we even basically share today (meeting in orthodox churches, and chatting amongst ourselves on the internet). So I don't know that Gnosticism was about rejecting Orthodox Christianity (although I'm sure it was for some like the authors of the Gospel of Judas) but finding a place within it. Maybe I'm completely wrong there; but that is my take on things.

Solomon wrote: "it is good to reach with one hand while holding on with the other; a righteous man avoids all extremes." I like to learn from both Orthodox Christianity and Gnosticism so I can find the path most suitable for myself.

I think you are in a wonderful area of trying to find a place of Zen between Gnostic and Catholic. I do believe there are fundamental differences between the salvation that is being sought that can’t be rectified. So I agree with looking for the middle ground between the two at some point I think it’s going to have to be an either or deal.

From GTom. I think it’s illustrating the same idea of sifting out the fully developed ideas from the ones still in progress.

8. And he said, "The person is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of little fish. Among them the wise fisherman discovered a fine large fish. He threw all the little fish back into the sea, and easily chose the large fish. Anyone here with two good ears had better listen!"
​

I personally believe in both a physical and a spiritual resurrection, but once again, I'm not as worried about that as I am other things.

I hope that is helpful

What are the more pressing issues over the dead getting to live again?

 

[Soulgazer]

I don't know if you saw my reply in #114, However xPistis had a very good post. I am more educated due to the position in the church, but the sentiment he expresses is completely valid.

To answer your last question; we are sons of the Living God(the whole race in potentiality). What does a son of a god grow up to be? Anyone who finds that answer will not be sitting around pulling the wings off flies.

 

[ElijahW]

Each text has a differing reason; sometimes the lines in the particular text. i.e. Matthew being composed by a Messianic Jew in Antioch, made a pointed dig at Paul, who taught there thirty years earlier. The Author of Philip made a pointed dig at Matthew for saying the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. Everything written is always in disagreement with somebody else. Sometimes very heated, as in Galatians, or the Testimony of Truth.

I agree with what you are saying but it’s not answering my question. I’m asking what your opinion is on the purpose of the Gospels in the NT’s, compared to the purpose of the Gnostic Gospels?

LOL, who is the Gnostic here, me or you? The expected king of Israel was supposed to be a sword swinging Conan that would rip Rome apart and make her sorry that she had messed with the "chosen". We see how well that worked out. The answer is quite obvious,(to us). The True God subverted the Jewish Prophesies to send His Son to teach. Ol' Yaltoboath is too jealous to have a son.

Many many Jews did. That is why he was rejected by so many after his death. But if the person in question was educated, then that expectancy changed because the examples in Greek history had people like Socrates and Cordrus who sacrificed their lives. You can’t understand Jesus coming from a purely Jewish perspective. There were influences from Greek thinkers going on at that time.

The Gnostics don’t understand the sacrifice, disregarding it because they are unfamiliar with the context or intent.

Maybe I hadn't made myself clear. We are born, we have a life filled with pain and disease, accident, war, execution, murder----we die. All this taking place on an unstable ball full of a whole host of deadly disasters, in a competitive environment where nothing, absolutely nothing, can live without the destruction of something else. Are you going to stand there with hat in hand and say "please sir, may I have some more?",as if being allowed to pick cotton for massa was the greatest gift imaginable? This is what Jesus came to save us from.

I think that you can look at all the misery in the world and think poorly of the situation we are in, but in no way does that make me consider killing myself. On the contrary it makes me want to consider what I can do to improve the world. I don’t know who looks at the world and thinks it sucks and wants to kill themselves. It is people’s personal lives that make them want to kill themselves. And I really don’t see the benefit in encouraging that kind of defeatist behavior.

I am Gnostic. As such, saying that the teachings of Jesus is not as important, is not only wrong, but potentially soul-killing wrong. This is the Son of the True God, sent to wash away all the garbage we had been believing for the last Milena. To quote Hebrews "6:1Wherefore leaving the doctrine of the first principles of Christ, let us press on unto perfection; not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 6:2of the teaching of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 6:3And this will we do, if God permit."

What new teaching do you think he brought us that wasn’t being currently taught in Alexandria at the time?

And how does this teaching save the soul or have any play in salvation what-so-ever?

Don't confuse catholic with Catholic. Baptist are catholic. Pentecostals are catholic.

I am not. I’ve tried to be careful to use little “c”.

Well, from my perspective I don't have any problem at all

No on the literalism. Gnostics were the first mythocist.

Sorry to be a jerk but could you take a moment to explain the fundamental difference between your understanding of the sacrifice of Jesus, and a literal one, of an anthropomorphic God, being emotionally pleased with the death of Jesus? When you say things like God being too jealous to have a son it really throws up some red flags, if you don’t explain that rationally.

Do you mean mythocist, as in thought Jesus was a mythical story that was confused for history? Or Docetic, in that he appeared in history but didn’t have physical form?

We do believe that the head of Prophesy was cut off with the Baptist, and that the Christ during the three days before the physical resurrection(sign of jonah) was quite busy removing a third of the power from astrologers and soothsayers. We have other sayings about the Kingdom of God growing one person at a time.

Have you bothered to think if what you are working towards is going to have any long term positive effect on the world? And like wise have you seen what is wrong with the plan the catholics were working towards.

You think there was a physical resurrection? And you aren’t being figurative with your language? What is your understanding of what happens before, during and after the resurrection?

I think it’s the “faith” itself and the being in the belly is like his death, which are both the causing factor of the faith that spread.

 

[Soulgazer]

I agree with what you are saying but it’s not answering my question. I’m asking what your opinion is on the purpose of the Gospels in the NT’s, compared to the purpose of the Gnostic Gospels?

Many many Jews did. That is why he was rejected by so many after his death. But if the person in question was educated, then that expectancy changed because the examples in Greek history had people like Socrates and Cordrus who sacrificed their lives. You can’t understand Jesus coming from a purely Jewish perspective. There were influences from Greek thinkers going on at that time.

The Gnostics don’t understand the sacrifice, disregarding it because they are unfamiliar with the context or intent.
I think that you can look at all the misery in the world and think poorly of the situation we are in, but in no way does that make me consider killing myself. On the contrary it makes me want to consider what I can do to improve the world. I don’t know who looks at the world and thinks it sucks and wants to kill themselves. It is people’s personal lives that make them want to kill themselves. And I really don’t see the benefit in encouraging that kind of defeatist behavior.
What new teaching do you think he brought us that wasn’t being currently taught in Alexandria at the time?

And how does this teaching save the soul or have any play in salvation what-so-ever?
I am not. I’ve tried to be careful to use little “c”.
Sorry to be a jerk but could you take a moment to explain the fundamental difference between your understanding of the sacrifice of Jesus, and a literal one, of an anthropomorphic God, being emotionally pleased with the death of Jesus? When you say things like God being too jealous to have a son it really throws up some red flags, if you don’t explain that rationally.

Do you mean mythocist, as in thought Jesus was a mythical story that was confused for history? Or Docetic, in that he appeared in history but didn’t have physical form?

Have you bothered to think if what you are working towards is going to have any long term positive effect on the world? And like wise have you seen what is wrong with the plan the catholics were working towards.

You think there was a physical resurrection? And you aren’t being figurative with your language? What is your understanding of what happens before, during and after the resurrection?

I think it’s the “faith” itself and the being in the belly is like his death, which are both the causing factor of the faith that spread.

No, I don't think you are being a jerk at all; you are just trying to understand a faith in Jesus that in some ways is radically different than yours.

Gnostics have often been called Docetic. Yet nothing in Gnostic writings even suggest that; somebody just doesn't like that our faith is different.

And I would argue that it is the catholics that don't understand the sacrifice Christ left the place of LIFE, which he had been inhabiting since the beginning. He left the place of Life, which has no fight or flight mechanism, no oppression, no tooth aches, no mid morning erections, no competition for the daily bread, and entered the place of death, where the inhabitants THINK they are alive, but are already dead. He brought the living water. The living water is His teachings.


You can improve the conditions of the people living in the world, but you cannot improve the world. No matter what you do, it is temporal. No matter how much you love someone, they are living under a death sentence. The Sun will eventually take care of that, leaving a little smoldering cinder behind. We will do the best we can until then because [SIZE=-1]1:27[/SIZE]Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.


No one is talking suicide. But no man can serve two masters.

Back to the top question. The Biblical and Gnostic writings serve the same purpose. They don't have to be harmonious, in fact it is better that they aren't. They give us differing points of view on the same subject.

Your soul is "saved" when you know God. John 17:3. And you can know God. Through Jesus Christ, and no one else. Trying to learn God through Moses is impossible---Moses didn't know God. Abraham didn't know God. The stories said they did, which is why the stories should be ignored as erroneous. (our view) Yaltobaoth is likened to a group of young virgin boys talking about sex; in their minds they are experts. Those that wrote about God were writing about Yaltoboath.

There is a whole host of theological reasons for the above, based on various writings, that I won't bore you with.(Jesus said I am the way, not Me and Moses are the way) The Gnostic Christian view and the catholic Christian view are different in a lot of ways, but the commonality is that we are both Christian.

Some there are, my son Rheginos, who want to learn many things. They have this goal when they are occupied with questions whose answer is lacking. If they succeed with these, they usually think very highly of themselves. But I do not think that they have stood within the Word of Truth. They seek rather their own rest, which we have received through our Savior, our Lord Christ. We received it when we came to know the truth and rested ourselves upon it. But since you ask us pleasantly what is proper concerning the resurrection, I am writing you that it is necessary. To be sure, many are lacking faith in it, but there are a few who find it. So then, let us discuss the matter. How did the Lord proclaim things while he existed in flesh and after he had revealed himself as Son of God? He lived in this place where you remain, speaking about the Law of Nature - but I call it 'Death'. Now the Son of God, Rheginos, was Son of Man. He embraced them both, possessing the humanity and the divinity, so that on the one hand he might vanquish death through his being Son of God, and that on the other through the Son of Man the restoration to the Pleroma might occur; because he was originally from above, a seed of Truth, before this structure had come into being. In this many dominions and divinities came into existence.
I know that I am presenting the solution in difficult terms, but there is nothing difficult in the Word of Truth. But since the Solution appeared so as not to leave anything hidden, but to reveal all things openly concerning existence - the destruction of evil on the one hand, the revelation of the elect on the other. This is the emanation of Truth and Spirit, Grace is of the Truth.
The Savior swallowed up death - (of this) you are not reckoned as being ignorant - for he put aside the world which is perishing. He transformed himself into an imperishable Aeon and raised himself up, having swallowed the visible by the invisible, and he gave us the way of our immortality. Then, indeed, as the Apostle said, "We suffered with him, and we arose with him, and we went to heaven with him". Now if we are manifest in this world wearing him, we are that one`s beams, and we are embraced by him until our setting, that is to say, our death in this life. We are drawn to heaven by him, like beams by the sun, not being restrained by anything. This is the spiritual resurrection which swallows up the psychic in the same way as the fleshly.
But if there is one who does not believe, he does not have the (capacity to be) persuaded. For it is the domain of faith, my son, and not that which belongs to persuasion: the dead shall arise! There is one who believes among the philsophers who are in this world. At least he will arise. And let not the philosopher who is in this world have cause to believe that he is one who returns himself by himself - and (that) because of our faith! For we have known the Son of Man, and we have believed that he rose from among the dead. This is he of whom we say, "He became the destruction of death, as he is a great one in whom they believe." Great are those who believe.
The thought of those who are saved shall not perish. The mind of those who have known him shall not perish. Therefore, we are elected to salvation and redemption since we are predestined from the beginning not to fall into the foolishness of those who are without knowledge, but we shall enter into the wisdom of those who have known the Truth. Indeed, the Truth which is kept cannot be abandoned, nor has it been. "Strong is the system of the Pleroma; small is that which broke loose (and) became (the) world. But the All is what is encompassed. It has not come into being; it was existing." So, never doubt concerning the resurrection, my son Rheginos! For if you were not existing in flesh, you received flesh when you entered this world. Why will you not receive flesh when you ascend into the Aeon? That which is better than the flesh is that which is for (the) cause of life. That which came into being on your account, is it not yours? Does not that which is yours exist with you? Yet, while you are in this world, what is it that you lack? This is what you have been making every effort to learn.
The afterbirth of the body is old age, and you exist in corruption. You have absence as a gain. For you will not give up what is better if you depart. That which is worse has diminution, but there is grace for it.
Nothing, then, redeems us from this world. But the All which we are, we are saved. We have received salvation from end to end. Let us think in this way! Let us comprehend in this way!
But there are some (who) wish to understand, in the enquiry about those things they are looking into, whether he who is saved, if he leaves his body behind, will be saved immediately. Let no one doubt concerning this. [...]. indeed, the visible members which are dead shall not be saved, for (only) the living members which exist within them would arise.
What, then, is the resurrection? It is always the disclosure of those who have risen. For if you remember reading in the Gospel that Elijah appeared and Moses with him, do not think the resurrection is an illusion. It is no illusion, but it is truth! Indeed, it is more fitting to say the world is an illusion, rather than the resurrection which has come into being through our Lord the Savior, Jesus Christ.
But what am I telling you now? Those who are living shall die. How do they live in an illusion? The rich have become poor, and the kings have been overthrown. Everything is prone to change. The world is an illusion! - lest, indeed, I rail at things to excess!
But the resurrection does not have this aforesaid character, for it is the truth which stands firm. It is the revelation of what is, and the transformation of things, and a transition into newness. For imperishability descends upon the perishable; the light flows down upon the darkness, swallowing it up; and the Pleroma fills up the deficiency. These are the symbols and the images of the resurrection. He it is who makes the good.
Therefore, do not think in part, O Rheginos, nor live in conformity with this flesh for the sake of unanimity, but flee from the divisions and the fetters, and already you have the resurrection. For if he who will die knows about himself that he will die - even if he spends many years in this life, he is brought to this - why not consider yourself as risen and (already) brought to this? If you have the resurrection but continue as if you are to die - and yet that one knows that he has died - why, then, do I ignore your lack of exercise? It is fitting for each one to practice in a number of ways, and he shall be released from this Element that he may not fall into error but shall himself receive again what at first was.
These things I have received from the generosity of my Lord, Jesus Christ. I have taught you and your brethren, my sons, considering them, while I have not omitted any of the things suitable for strengthening you. But if there is one thing written which is obscure in my exposition of the Word, I shall interpret it for you (pl.) when you (pl.) ask. But now, do not be jealous of anyone who is in your number when he is able to help.
Many are looking into this which I have written to you. To these I say: Peace (be) among them and grace. I greet you and those who love you (pl.) in brotherly Love.

 

[Xpistis sopheiaX]

"You want to do what you can do to fix the world, right? The idea of studying philosophy to save your soul, and this world being irredeemable, isn’t something you agree with from the Gnostics. "

I'm not sure exactly how to answer this. Yes being a "Christ" in as far as healing the sick and feeding the poor do improve the world, but we can't fix the physical world.

I don't know if this is a great comparison, but I'm a big fan of samurai movies, and I love the stories of samurai willingly dying, by fighting battles they know they will lose, in service to their lord and honor etc.

In a way I think a lot of the positive actions we make in the world, as far a charity and so on, are a bit like that. When it comes to the physical world we're fighting a losing battle, but we do so in our duty to God.

However when we embody God's will, people can see Christ through us. So our actions in the physical world benefit others spiritually. Ultimately we're fighting a spiritual war, and not a physical one. In fact I think all of our real problems are spiritual as the physical world is temporary. I think our physical problems are manifestations of spiritual problems or representative of spiritual problems (although I don't want to take that idea to it's extremes and start blaming hurricanes on gays like Pat Robertson or something ridiculous).

"I agree that the details of the afterlife are impossible to know for certain. But, the basic question of is the afterlife going to be here and we need to start fixing this place to accomidate that, or is it in another realm someplace else more perfect than this world and we shouldn’t worry about this world. Other than teaching the gnosis that helps everyone’s soul escape."

I don't know and I can't answer that. However I remember a discussion of the Gnostic text Marsanes (which I haven't read myself b/c it is so damaged and fragmented) the idea of the resurrection of the physical world. I think this would be not only desirable, but a logical progression of Christian theology. However, if that is the case, I'm not worried that I'll be responsible for fixing the physical realm. I think this would take a literal second coming.

"Small note; Ebionites are the only major Christian sect that is saved by the law. The catholics are saved by faith.
Should we consider it like “faith” that is received and it is faith that defines the true Gnostic and the true Catholic?"

I think the first question I had about Gnosticism was whether salvation by Gnosis was a contradiction with salvation by faith... I don't have a good answer for this, although I think it is likely they are describing a similar experience.

"I think you are in a wonderful area of trying to find a place of Zen between Gnostic and Catholic."

I don't know that I would describe it that way. I think I'm trying to find a fuller and more layered understanding of Christianity. I don't consider Gnostic Christianity and Orthodox Christianity necessarily two separate things to be weighed against each-other.

"I do believe there are fundamental differences between the salvation that is being sought that can’t be rectified. So I agree with looking for the middle ground between the two at some point I think it’s going to have to be an either or deal."

I don't consider salvation an "either or" thing. However the words we use to describe it are different, the spiritual experience itself is the same thing. I really don't consider Gnostic Christianity, despite there being real differences, a rejection of Orthodox Christianity.


"What are the more pressing issues over the dead getting to live again?"

Resurrection of the living, who are spiritually dead.

I'm not sure resurrection of the literal dead is on my radar. Shouldn't we "let the dead bury the dead" so to speak?

 

[Ishraqiyun]

So I don't think Gnosticism is rejecting Orthodox Christianity as much as it is learning layers of meanings and multiple perspectives. Also I think the scholar April DeConick wrote somewhat recently that "Gnostics" met in proto-Orthodox churches and later with other Gnostics in lodges. I think this a pretty good model for Gnostic Christianity, and one that we even basically share today (meeting in orthodox churches, and chatting amongst ourselves on the internet). So I don't know that Gnosticism was about rejecting Orthodox Christianity (although I'm sure it was for some like the authors of the Gospel of Judas) but finding a place within it. Maybe I'm completely wrong there; but that is my take on things.

That is especially the case with the Valentinians who went to catholic (or proto-orthodox) Churches and would even verbally accept whatever "dogma" was currently in force at the time. The heresy hunters hated that lol. I believe it was Irenaeus who called them "wolves in sheeps clothing" because outwardly they would agree with everything their proto-orthodox / catholic bishops said but inwardly he knew they only accepted it as binding on psychic Christians. They did this recognizing it's provisional usefulness even if it was a "lower" teaching. Kind of like Paul telling people they are free to eat meat but if hurts the faith of their brother to refrain from it. Valentinius was so popular in the catholic Church that he was nearly elected bishop of Rome!

Same thing with many later day gnostics like Jacob Boehme who stayed within the Lutheran Church.