Gnosis

MaybeLogic

I was wondering what is the view here on Gnosis, the notion that spiritual knowledge is the path to God,the kingdom of heaven lies within you.

And what do people think of the Gnostic Gospels in general?

MaybeLogic

Perhaps my opening post is a little sparse.

I was raised a Christian, in the Catholic Church but gave it up in my early teens.

In my twenties I found an interest in Buddhism, and later Taoism, Sufism and Yoga.

I came across gnosticism reading the so-called Gnostic trilogy of Philip K Dick, started to investigate it, and couldn't help but notice the parallels between it and the notion of enlightenment in Buddhism, or unfolding in Sufism etc.

I was drawn to notions that the logia of Christ may have existed as far back as the Zadokites, and through the Essenes, and that spiritual practice was the route to God, as opposed to faith, not that the two need be mutually exclusive, and I found the Gnostic cosmology to be equally interesting.

Reading the Gnostic Gospels and some of the Nag Hammadi library reinforced these notions.

I was just curious on anyones view here on the same.

Fanny Cradock

The various Gnostic writings might contain some truths or pose some interesting questions, but I don't think that Gnosticism itself is compatible with biblical Christianity. Indeed, from what I know of Gnosticism (and I gather that there are many flavours to be found under the gnostic banner), it subtly subverts and twists the message of the Gospels. The focus is changed from God and salvation through Jesus to the inner self and the kingdom within. I think it plausible that Luke intended the accounts of Jesus' post-resurrection physical existence (eating fish and honeycomb etc) to tackle any Gnostic suggestions. This, of course, is not to say that it didn't happen.

Orthodox Christian theology (as opposed to heterodox theology) makes a very specific claim about Jesus and what his death and resurrection mean for all of creation. It speaks of salvation through Jesus, a physical existence in a "glorified body" and looks forward to a new way of existing in a new heavens and a new earth.

If you want a scholarly explanation as to why the four gospels are distinct from the various Gnostic writings then you might want to listen to this lecture by Richard Baukham.

MaybeLogic

I don't mean any disrespect to anyones beliefs here, but I don't necessarily buy into the belief that the Canonical Gospels are the truth of Jesus' ministry.

It's oft-times impossible to discern the truth about current events, let alone the events of 2000 years ago, and the events surrounding the Council of Nicea etc, though I will note that it's correct what you say about there being various groups and twists to gnosticism, their being more concerned with spiritual practise, and less bothered about orthodoxy, being one of the main points that stuck in the craw of their detractors.

I don't wish to enter that debate at all. I retain instead my agnosticism as to which Bibles are the correct ones, but I recognise you are just answering my questions as regards said Gospels.

Is spiritual practise/knowledge incompatible with Orthodoxical Christianity, and why?

PDN

MaybeLogic wrote: »

I don't mean any disrespect to anyones beliefs here, but I don't necessarily buy into the belief that the Canonical Gospels are the truth of Jesus' ministry.

That will make debate difficult in the Christianity Forum then.

It's oft-times impossible to discern the truth about current events, let alone the events of 2000 years ago, and the events surrounding the Council of Nicea etc, though I will note that it's correct what you say about there were various groups and twists to gnosticism, there being more concerned with spiritual practise and less bothered about orthodoxy, being one of the main points that stuck in the craw of their detractors.

The events surrounding the Council of Nicea are clearly recorded. They had nothing to do with the canon of the Bible. That is an urban legend perpetuated by claptrap such as The Davinci Code.

Is spiritual practise/knowledge incompatible with Orthodoxical Christianity, and why?

Historical Christianity is all about spiritual knowledge and practice. We come to know that Jesus is the Son of God who died for the sins of the world, then we place our faith in Him, then we know that we are saved.

We seek to practice our faith by following the teachings of Christ as recorded in the New Testament.

Gnosticism, in my opinion, is fundamentally different from Christianity and so incompatible with it.

Christianity is essentially open to all mankind. The Gospel message is to be openly proclaimed, and its basic message can be grasped by anyone, even a child.

Gnosticism was a system of thought that thrived on mysteries and secret rituals, with the thrilling prospect that you could be saved by being one of a special few who were granted access to this secret knowledge.

Fanny Cradock

MaybeLogic wrote: »

I don't mean any disrespect to anyones beliefs here, but I don't necessarily buy into the belief that the Canonical Gospels are the truth of Jesus' ministry.

That's fine. But I don't know why you think that Gnostic writings are any closer to the truth.

MaybeLogic wrote: »

It's oft-times impossible to discern the truth about current events, let alone the events of 2000 years ago, and the events surrounding the Council of Nicea etc

That doesn't mean we can't find truth even in our uncertainty.

MaybeLogic wrote: »

though I will note that it's correct what you say about there being various groups and twists to gnosticism, their being more concerned with spiritual practise, and less bothered about orthodoxy, being one of the main points that stuck in the craw of their detractors.

I wouldn't say that Gnosticism is concerned with orthodoxy in any respect. Their detractors accused them of a perversion of the Christian message.

MaybeLogic wrote: »

I don't wish to enter that debate at all. I retain instead my agnosticism as to which Bibles are the correct ones, but I recognise you are just answering my questions as regards said Gospels.

Well, as PDN has already noted, that would make any debate difficult.

georgieporgy

MaybeLogic wrote: »

Perhaps my opening post is a little sparse.

I was raised a Christian, in the Catholic Church but gave it up in my early teens.

In my twenties I found an interest in Buddhism, and later Taoism, Sufism and Yoga.

I came across gnosticism reading the so-called Gnostic trilogy of Philip K Dick, started to investigate it, and couldn't help but notice the parallels between it and the notion of enlightenment in Buddhism, or unfolding in Sufism etc.

I was drawn to notions that the logia of Christ may have existed as far back as the Zadokites, and through the Essenes, and that spiritual practice was the route to God, as opposed to faith, not that the two need be mutually exclusive, and I found the Gnostic cosmology to be equally interesting.

Reading the Gnostic Gospels and some of the Nag Hammadi library reinforced these notions.

I was just curious on anyones view here on the same.

I agree with excellent responses above and would like to add one more.
You started out on the right path but got off it. You are now ipso facto on the wrong path.