Gnosticism / Gnostic Christianity

UU

Bonjour,

I was looking into Mary Magdalene and all that jazz when I came across Gnosticism (or Gnostic Christianity). I looked it up but I just can't get my head around what it exactly is. From what I know is that it is the very early Christian faith and Gnostic texts of the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, Gospel of Philip and fragments of the Gospel of Thomas were found is an excavation in Egypt. Could someone like Excelsior or anybody else who has prior knowledge and understanding please help me understand what Gnosticism is all about?

midget lord

Reading anything by Dan Brown lately?


Anyway, have you read this?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm


Quite a lot of info but the first link in a google search and i assume you went there already

UU

midget lord wrote:

Reading anything by Dan Brown lately?

Anyway, have you read this?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm

Quite a lot of info but the first link in a google search and i assume you went there already

Yes in fact I have. I'm at the end of the 'Da Vinci Code' and I am going to start reading 'Angels And Demons' next. No in fact I haven't gone there yet as I was using a different search engine but I'll start using Google as it seems to be the best.
P.S. Thanks for the link!

Sapien

UU wrote:

I was looking into Mary Magdalene and all that jazz when I came across Gnosticism (or Gnostic Christianity). I looked it up but I just can't get my head around what it exactly is. From what I know is that it is the very early Christian faith and Gnostic texts of the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, Gospel of Philip and fragments of the Gospel of Thomas were found is an excavation in Egypt. Could someone like Excelsior or anybody else who has prior knowledge and understanding please help me understand what Gnosticism is all about?

I wouldn't expect too much sensible information about Gnosticism to come from the Christians amongst us, as indispensable as they may be in other ways. I have seen Gnosticism being evoked to serve some very odd meanings on this board. It's a fascinating subject, but one with a lot of dead ends which are apt to frustrate an inexperienced researcher. Some people have coined very specific versions of Gnosticism, often involving bizarre and unsavoury interpretations, which one, upon an initial investigation, could be lead to believe is all there is to it. Others have used the term Gnosticism as an umbrella to objectify a broad panoply of heterodoxies, many of which had very little to do with Gnosticism.

The main point I would make is that there at no time existed a religion called "Gnosticism". It is rather a retrospective categorisation applied, with varying degrees of legitimacy, to a number of faiths with broad theogenic similarities, extant and active throughout Europe and the Middle East from the late centuries BCE to the present day, many of which were nominally Christian, or incorporated Christian elements.

A brief list of the many species of systems which could be described in one way or another as being Gnostic might go something like: Mandaeanism, Manichaeism - Pre-Christian; Sethians, Cerinthus, Simon Magus, Marcion of Sinope, Valentinians, Basilidians, Ophites, Cainites, Carpocratians, Borborites, Bogomils, Cathars - Christian or quasi-Christian; Qabalism - Hebrew; Sufism - Muslim.

solas

hey sapien, I hear the catholic church are performing exorcisms again.

Sapien

solas wrote:

hey sapien, I hear the catholic church are performing exorcisms again.

I was unaware that they had stopped.

solas

thought you might be interested.

BrianCalgary

I did some reading on Gnosticism last night and Sapien is on the right with his comments. (Except the one where he claims not too much sensible information about Gnosticism to come from the Christians amongst us) Gnosticism has its roots in what we would term 'eastern mysticism'. I imagine that the adherents of the mystic point of view wished to explain the life and ministry of Christ in terms that would fit their belief system.

Therefore the wing of Christianity that we would call Gnosticism has Christ being a man, because the spiritual God can never touch the physical. The point of view being that the spiritual and the physical can never meet. The view of Christ appears to be one of a man who lived a very moral life but can't be called God.

This led to a belief where the physical and spiritual where completely seperate. The spiritual could be saved whereas the physical could do as it pleased (ie. sin), because the physical did not affect the spiritual.

There was a rise in writings in the 2nd and 3rd centuries to support the Gnostic point of view and, as I understand, it was all discredited as heretical at the council of Nicaea when its beliefs were tested against the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.

It is difficult to get the head around and tough to gather information. I have been wondering about it for years when I first read about it about 10 years ago, and I feel I'm finally grasping the concept. Christian History & Biography magazine equates it to todays New Age movement.

Excelsior

Sapien wrote:

I wouldn't expect too much sensible information about Gnosticism to come from the Christians amongst us

As an inexperienced researcher it might not be sensible it might not be but I'll offer what I have.

uu wrote:

From what I know is that it is the very early Christian faith

Gnosticism might be a broad and retrospective category but it isn't wide enough to include everything. There are certain things it is not and chief amongst them is early Christianity. Visit any Easons in Ireland and you'll find lots of lurid books claiming all kinds of mad stuff and they often represent Gnosticism as the earliest and subsequently violently overthrown expression of Christianity. This view has been most effectively propogated through the airport novelist Dan Brown but it draws on far more sensible (if I can use that word ) work by scholars like Elaine Pagels.

From a historical perspective, Gnosticism is seperate from Christianity. They overlapped and interacted but the evidence is very clear that Christians viewed Gnostics as interlopers who mythologized things that they believed actually happened and spiritualised them so that this revised Jesus would fit into (categories we now call) Gnostic and streams of belief that had originated 100s of years before Jesus.

Many of the letters of the New Testament explicitly deal with gnostic interference in churches. The 1st Letter of John is addressed to a church being plagued by false teachers who are preaching a different Gospel. It is reasonable to assume that this unnamed sect is Gnostic (to use the retroactive categorisation) since the Beloved Apostle draws on themes common to Gnosticism, especially when speaking about "Light" and "Darkness".

If you move past the stage of Canon writing into the era of Canon formation you will find that the early Church fathers view Gnostic teachings as parasitic on the Apostolic testimony that Christianity is founded on. Iranaeus' Against Heresies is just the most famous expression of this clear distinction in the then contemporary mind between the thing we now call Christianity and the things we now refer to as Gnostic.

uu wrote:

Gnostic texts of the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, Gospel of Philip and fragments of the Gospel of Thomas

I am out on my travels this afternoon so I am citing from memory but the Gospel of Mary is from 180AD and Philip is 120AD. That makes them respectively, 3 and 1 generations further removed from the last Gospel, John, which was written sometime about the mid-90s AD. I will verify that when I get home. Neither of them can be considered early by any stretch of imagination and there is no evidence that any of them were ever used in any Christian church.

Thomas is not a Gospel. It is a collection of 114 aphorisms without narrative. A Gospel is a (purported) narrative account of the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. Thomas is more like the rough draft of what might turn into a Gospel. An interesting excercise to see the ambiguous nature of the account is to go search for it online. Most manuscripts you find will have 113 aphorisms because the last one reads:

The Guy Who Wrote Thomas wrote:

Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

Not quite the feminist Jesus we see in the Canonical Gospels. And although this verse is in the Nag Hammandi find which started this mini-industry in conspiracy theories, there is an argument for striking it from the record because Thomas changes so often across the early centuries that it is difficult to say what is original and what is later elaboration. The bits that Thomas shares in common with the Synoptic texts is likely to have been inspired by the same source Q (likely but far from certain). The later stuff can't be dated at all with any certainty at all. Thomas was also never used in any church.

Please correct me if I'm wrong here Sapien but the streams of Gnosticism converge over a shared concept of secret knowledge. They are mystery religions that impart ever more profound teachings as the students ascend to maturity. In this sense, Scientology and Kabballah might be thrown into the meaningless soup that the word refers to. Often I have read that Gnostics hold a division between Spirit, which is pure and Body, which is defiled in common but I have heard contradicting views too.

Sapien

Excelsior wrote:

Please correct me if I'm wrong here Sapien but the streams of Gnosticism converge over a shared concept of secret knowledge.

That is about the only thing that can be described as a necessary element of Gnosticism, yes.

They are mystery religions that impart ever more profound teachings as the students ascend to maturity.

That is a fair generalisation, though it neglects some forms of Gnosticism I can think of. The initiation and ascension type of Gnosticism would tend to be found in Gnostic "schools of thought" or spiritual movements, like some of the early and ephemeral Christo-Gnostic sects, the Qabalah and the Sufis. However, the list I give above includes many movements which came to be fully functional, community enveloping religions, such as Catharism. In these cases one would be born into Gnosticism, and would learn more about it in the course of ones life just as with Christianity. Certainly there would have been venerable and learned elders and pastoral leaders in these communities, but there would not have existed the same stratification of levels of gnostic enlightenment as with the elite forms of Gnosticism, where often a system of "grades" would be in place.

In this sense, Scientology and Kabballah might be thrown into the meaningless soup that the word refers to.

I know less than nothing about Scientology, but I did include Kabballah (Cabala, Qabalah, QBL) in my list. In fact, QBL is the from of Gnosticism with which I am most familiar.

Often I have read that Gnostics hold a division between Spirit, which is pure and Body, which is defiled in common but I have heard contradicting views too.

That sounds very much like the form of Christian Gnosticism based around the theogeny of Sofia and the Demiurge. It may be true to say that Gnostics tend to believe that there exist more pure, rarefied and, ultimately, significant aspects to the universe, which could be described as "Spirit", in contrast to the "Body" which we see about us. Or are you adumbrating the Tertium Quid heresy?

Excelsior

I got the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Peter mixed up. Philip is dated from between 250 and 300. Even the most radical and biased scholars like the Jesus Seminar don't include it in the mix of Gospels that can reasonably shed light on Christianity's beginnings.

I remembered Mary right though, the consensus is around 180 and 200AD.

Thanks for the clarification Sapien. I'm not referring to any particular heresy or historical event, just the general impressions I have gotten from reading in the area.

BrianCalgary

Alright, I can learn something new today.

What is the Tertium Quid heresy?

Thanks:D

robindch

> I know less than nothing about Scientology,

Certainly not a topic to waste much time over, but if you have five minutes, a working knowledge of its blithering, kleptocratic and wobbly-arsed lunacies can be had from the good folks over at Operation Clambake at:

http://www.clambake.org

The clam reference comes from Elron's (the founder, L Ron Hubbard's) unusual interest in clams. Other things that scientologists worry about include 'thetan' (==soul), 'xenu' (==god) and engram (==er, damn, it's something measured by a twitching e-meter), and a series of wonderfully impenetrable acronyms that wouldn't look out of place in the Pentagon.

UU

robindch wrote:

> I know less than nothing about Scientology,

Certainly not a topic to waste much time over, but if you have five minutes, a working knowledge of its blithering, kleptocratic and wobbly-arsed lunacies can be had from the good folks over at Operation Clambake at:

http://www.clambake.org

The clam reference comes from Elron's (the founder, L Ron Hubbard's) unusual interest in clams. Other things that scientologists worry about include 'thetan' (==soul), 'xenu' (==god) and engram (==er, damn, it's something measured by a twitching e-meter), and a series of wonderfully impenetrable acronyms that wouldn't look out of place in the Pentagon.

True, that Scientology is very dangerous and crazy but many of the beliefs came from Gnosticism, Buddhism, Tao, etc. Refer to http://www.bible.ca/scientology-gnostic-roots.htm except for the whole alien "freakology"! From what I recall their God is actually "The 8th Dynamic : Infinity" but from reading some of The Road to Xenu by Margery Wakefield they seem to worship the founder L.Ron Hubbard as a God, as well as money! Refer to http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/xenu/. I actually hold some Scientology beliefs like the 8 dynamics of life but I suppose that is because these beliefs were stole from Gnosticism etc.

Sapien

BrianCalgary wrote:

Alright, I can learn something new today.

What is the Tertium Quid heresy?

Thanks:D

I don't know the dates, but I have an inkling that it was settled as heresy in the fourth century at Constantinople I. Excelsior could probably tell you more.

It was an early Christological heresy concerning the divinity of Christ. The main schools of thought were: 1) that he was fully divine and made of the same "substance" as God the Father, whatever that may be; and 2) that he was fully human, but just really, really great. Gnostic schools tended to profess to believe no. 2 - that he was flesh and blood, but had a spiritual connection to God (gnosis), and that the term "Son of God" was largely allegorical. This, of course, was intolerable to the nascent Church and was opposed vociferously.

Then a chap called Apollonaris came along and suggested that both schools were wrong - that Christ was neither God nor man, but something else, different to both - a "third thing", or Tertium Quid (lat.). It too was declared heresy at the First Council of Constantinople, as it was decided that it still undermined the absolute divinity of Christ and so threaten the authority of the Church.

Ironically, I believe that the orthodox doctrine accepted pretty universally on this matter today is, after all that, a formulation of the tertium quid heresy. Most Christians believe, do they not, that Christ was (is?) fully God and fully man? Well, if fully God = A, and fully man = B, then what is fully God and fully man? AB? C?

robindch wrote:

Certainly not a topic to waste much time over, but if you have five minutes, a working knowledge of its blithering, kleptocratic and wobbly-arsed lunacies can be had from the good folks over at Operation Clambake at:

Kleptocracy! I thank you sir.

robindch

> I believe that the orthodox doctrine accepted pretty universally on this
> matter today is, after all that, a formulation of the tertium quid heresy

I'll happily wait for our friendly religious confrères to answer this one. Mercifully, the weight of such distant matters had lessened over the years to the extent that the lot was omitted, perhaps wisely, by the monks who taught me.

Though I seem to remember, no doubt incorrectly, that it was the Maronites -- my second-favourite pre-20th century christian sect -- who latched onto the Third Way most energetically, before ascending en-masse into Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, there, over the centuries, to till the soil from which ultimately came the wonderful Kefraya, Musar and Ksara wines which I can heartily recommend and which are probably still available, for irretrievably inflated prices, from Berry Brothers 'cross the street from Bruxelles, off Grafton Street.

Sapien

robindch wrote:

Though I seem to remember, no doubt incorrectly, that it was the Maronites -- my second-favourite pre-20th century christian sect -- who latched onto the Third Way most energetically, before ascending en-masse into Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, there, over the centuries, to till the soil from which ultimately came the wonderful Kefraya, Musar and Ksara wines which I can heartily recommend and which are probably still available, for irretrievably inflated prices, from Berry Brothers 'cross the street from Bruxelles, off Grafton Street.

Oh god, never mind. A terse wikispree turns up monothelitism, monoenergism and monophysitism within seconds. Who cares that much?

The fully human, fully divine idea is, apparently, called the Chalcedonian Creed. Bit of a cop out, if you ask me.

Excelsior

Here I'll have to throw up my hands and admit that as a Computer Science graduate with some clever friends, I am far from authority enough to unroll Chalcedon.

My response, for what its worth Sapien, would be to point out that Chalcedon, having examined the Gospel record and the rest of Scripture, returned an opinion that Jesus seems to be both man in full and God in full.

Jumping from there to a third place runs counter to the source information that led us to the conclusion in the first place. C, where AB = C does tempt me as an idea to think about but I have no idea what implications this theory threw up that brought it into heresy.

roosh

Didn't want to start a new thread on this, so just dredging up an old one. At the moment I'm trying to develop my understanding of subjects like Gnosticism, and have a few questions if anyone is able to help. Some of the questions I had were addressed by the info here, but I'm trying to get a better picture of religion in general.


Does anyone know where Gnosticism ranks, in terms of a timeline, with christianity? From the information in this thread, it sounds like Gnosticism is more of a general term, or general approach to religion/spirituality, that is found across a broad range of religions, so it could perhaps be said that it existed before christianity, but that a christian brand of gnosticism developed.

I'm also wondering would mainstream christianity have developed from the teachings of the gnostics, or would chrisitan gnosticism have developed from the teachings of the church?

The impression that I get, is that the christian church, as directed by the roman empire, seems to have become the authority on christian matters at some point in the past - where councils of the roman catholic church decided what was and wasn't heresey. I'm just wondering, is it possible that Gnosticism, or mysticism would represent more accurately the teachings of Jesus, and that the politicisation of the christian religion, by the roman empire, could have lead to somewhat of a distortion of those teachings?


I'm sure people will have strong opinions on this, but I am genuinely interested in finding out the truth about all of this.

thanks in advance

Donatello

Don't know much about gnosticism, but what I do know is this - it is essentially an attempt to escape the cross through 'secret' knowledge. It doesn't work though. Without the cross there is no salvation. As St. John of the Cross said:

'Who does not seek the cross of Christ," he wrote, "does not seek the glory of Christ."

For many, as I have often told you and now tell you even in tears, conduct themselves as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction. Their God is their stomach; their glory is their “shame.” Their minds are occupied with earthly things.

—Philippians 3:18-19

roosh

Donatello wrote: »

Don't know much about gnosticism, but what I do know is this - it is essentially an attempt to escape the cross through 'secret' knowledge. It doesn't work though. Without the cross there is no salvation. As St. John of the Cross said:

'Who does not seek the cross of Christ," he wrote, "does not seek the glory of Christ."

what does it mean to be "enemies of the cross of Christ"; what does it mean to "escape the cross through 'secret' knowledge"?

Donatello

mangaroosh wrote: »

what does it mean to be "enemies of the cross of Christ"; what does it mean to "escape the cross through 'secret' knowledge"?

If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life, shall lose it; for he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall save it.

- Luke 9:23-24

If we are to be saved, we must deny ourselves, take up our cross in life, and follow Christ. We must die to ourselves.

That's hard. Gnosticism proposes an alternative 'solution' - secret 'knowledge' which, they claim, leads to salvation, redemption, enlightenment - whatever they care to call it.

Being an enemy of the cross of Christ means you seek to avoid it, and find an alternative solution. That's human nature. It's the easy way, but it does not lead to eternal life.

For the Gnostic, salvation (they believe) comes about through what you know. It is a psychological avoidance of the hard work of following Christ and carrying the cross. All Christians must battle against this tendency in ourselves.

Some background reading contained in this article.

roosh

Donatello wrote: »

If we are to be saved, we must deny ourselves, take up our cross in life, and follow Christ. We must die to ourselves.

That's hard. Gnosticism proposes an alternative 'solution' - secret 'knowledge' which, they claim, leads to salvation, redemption, enlightenment - whatever they care to call it.

Being an enemy of the cross of Christ means you seek to avoid it, and find an alternative solution. That's human nature. It's the easy way, but it does not lead to eternal life.

For the Gnostic, salvation (they believe) comes about through what you know. It is a psychological avoidance of the hard work of following Christ and carrying the cross. All Christians must battle against this tendency in ourselves.

Some background reading contained in this article.

Interesting post Donatello; what you say about denying ourselves and dieing to ourselves sounds very much like spiritual/mystical teachings on the nature of self. In Buddhism "salvation"/liberationenlightenment is gained through knowledge of the true self, which is in effect the denial of the self, or the realisation that there is no self. I'm just wondering is this the kind of "secret knowledge" that Gnostics refer to?

Donatello

mangaroosh wrote: »

Interesting post Donatello; what you say about denying ourselves and dieing to ourselves sounds very much like spiritual/mystical teachings on the nature of self. In Buddhism "salvation"/liberationenlightenment is gained through knowledge of the true self, which is in effect the denial of the self, or the realisation that there is no self. I'm just wondering is this the kind of "secret knowledge" that Gnostics refer to?

One difference between Christianity and Buddhism is the meaning of suffering. For Christians, suffering has meaning, because it is redemptive - we can unite our own sufferings to those of Christ's and therefore be part of the redemption of the human race. If I suffer, and I am incorporated into Jesus Christ, then my suffering becomes His. It has value. There can therefore be great joy even in the midst of suffering.

In Buddhism, the aim is to escape suffering through loss of desire and personality, on the way to extinction of self aka nirvana. Suffering has no meaning. Everything is an illusion. Buddhism denies the ultimate existence of sin and the necessity of grace from God.

As regards what Gnostics believe, there are a plethora of beliefs. Gnostics believe that knowledge, not grace, was necessary for salvation.

This is interesting: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601fea1.asp

roosh

Donatello wrote: »

One difference between Christianity and Buddhism is the meaning of suffering. For Christians, suffering has meaning, because it is redemptive - we can unite our own sufferings to those of Christ's and therefore be part of the redemption of the human race. If I suffer, and I am incorporated into Jesus Christ, then my suffering becomes His. It has value. There can therefore be great joy even in the midst of suffering.

In Buddhism, the aim is to escape suffering through loss of desire and personality, on the way to extinction of self aka nirvana. Suffering has no meaning. Everything is an illusion. Buddhism denies the ultimate existence of sin and the necessity of grace from God.

As regards what Gnostics believe, there are a plethora of beliefs. Gnostics believe that knowledge, not grace, was necessary for salvation.

This is interesting: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601fea1.asp

How is one incorporated into Jesus Christ; what is "grace from God"; what is sin?

With regard to there being great joy in the midst of suffering, the same is true of Buddhism. Also, I wouldn't say that Buddhism denies the ultimate existence of sin, or the necessity of "grace from God" (although I'm not sure what that means); such things may be expressed in a different conceptual framework, but I don't think they are denied.

What exactly is "grace" btw?

cheers for the links btw

Donatello

mangaroosh wrote: »

How is one incorporated into Jesus Christ; what is "grace from God"; what is sin?

With regard to there being great joy in the midst of suffering, the same is true of Buddhism. Also, I wouldn't say that Buddhism denies the ultimate existence of sin, or the necessity of "grace from God" (although I'm not sure what that means); such things may be expressed in a different conceptual framework, but I don't think they are denied.

What exactly is "grace" btw?

cheers for the links btw

We are incorporated into Christ through baptism.

From the Catechism:

1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an "adopted son" he can henceforth call God "Father," in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.

1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification:

Therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself.

2000 Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God's call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to God's interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.

More here and here.

Fanny Cradock

In future please start a new thread.

roosh

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In future please start a new thread.

out of curiosity, is there a reason as to why it's preferable to start a new thread? I was always under the impression it was preferable not to start a new thread if there was already an existing one.

I have no bones about starting a new one, just wondering as to the reason why it is preferable.

Donatello

mangaroosh wrote: »

out of curiosity, is there a reason as to why it's preferable to start a new thread? I was always under the impression it was preferable not to start a new thread if there was already an existing one.

I have no bones about starting a new one, just wondering as to the reason why it is preferable.

The thread is about Gnosticism. I followed you into a discussion about Buddhism, for which a new thread would be in order so this thread can remain on the topic of Gnosticism. We're both as guilty as hell.

PDN

mangaroosh wrote: »

out of curiosity, is there a reason as to why it's preferable to start a new thread? I was always under the impression it was preferable not to start a new thread if there was already an existing one.

I have no bones about starting a new one, just wondering as to the reason why it is preferable.

An existing thread is one that has been live at some time in the last few weeks.

A thread that is resurrected after 6 years is known as a 'zombie thread'. They often create confusion because you end up arguing with what someone who may not even be around any more posted years ago.

roosh

PDN wrote: »

An existing thread is one that has been live at some time in the last few weeks.

A thread that is resurrected after 6 years is known as a 'zombie thread'. They often create confusion because you end up arguing with what someone who may not even be around any more posted years ago.

ah cool. my bad on that one.

Fanny Cradock

Richard Bauckham talks about Gnostic gospels in respect to the Cannon here. In other words, he discusses why there are 4 Gospels in the Cannon and other gospels like the Gospel of Thomas etc. were excluded.