Ask a Gnostic Anything

[Sophia_Christ]

And that divine spark, coming from the true God who is the mystical substratum that underlies everything, has important implications, namely that the Holy trinity is not the true God - right?

Right-On the ultimate level there is no trinity

 

[joe371]

Hmm I suppose this depends on your definition of what a Christian is but that just seems like semantics to me. I believe God is most present in the picture of Jesus painted in Gnostic Gospels so that is why I use this term to describe myself. But it is just a meaningless label in the end just like all linguistic identification with concepts that only have value in the material world. On the ultimate level, there are no Christians, Jews, Muslims, Gnostics, etc. There is only God.

A Christian is one who believes that Jesus is the second divine person of the Holy Trinity (savior of the whole world) i.e. the Holy Trinity is the true God, as opposed to what you claim is the true God, namely, the mystical substratum that underlies everything. If the Holy Trinity is not the true God, to you, then you are not a Christian, again said with respect and charity.

 

[joe371]

Right-On the ultimate level there is no trinity

Well, then you totally reject the key tenet of Christianity, in favor of another God. No Trinity; no Jesus; no savior. Why call yourself a Christian?

 

[Sophia_Christ]

A Christian is one who believes that Jesus is the second divine person of the Holy Trinity (savior of the whole world) i.e. the Holy Trinity is the true God, as opposed to what you claim is the true God, namely, the mystical substratum that underlies everything. If the Holy Trinity is not the true God, to you, then you are not a Christian, again said with respect and charity.

Hmm I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. I believe I am a Christian on the grounds that I follow the teachings of Christ as found in the Gnostic Gospels-I just don’t fall into you or your institution’s definition of a Christian.

 

[Lucretius]

Excellent point. However, it must be noted that just because Christianity arose from Jewish thinkers, it does not follow that the teachings cannot be viewed through a different cultural lens. For example, Buddhism was founded in India but they are an extreme minority there these days. But Asian countries have adopted Buddhism and examined it in light of their own cultural tendencies. If Alexandrian thought helps us to create an arguably more cohesive interpretation of Christianity I do not see the harm. Christ’s message is universal and no one culture has a monopoly on his message. We must not also forget the Platonic influence on church fathers such as St. Augustine.

I see what you mean, but it’s hard to draw the line when a person takes viewing an idea in a different lens too far. For example, many Fathers were influenced by Platonic thought, as you said. But this has lead to errors in their thinking as well (the Fathers individually are not infallible). St. Augustine took neo-Platonism too far in some of his ideas on predestination and Original sin. Origen is probably the best example of going way too far off the mark with Greek thought, with the Cappadocian fathers being forgiving somewhat because Origen’s ideas were not condemned yet.

The whole “Sacred Tradition” thing that Apostolic Christians appeal to is the answer to these extremes: tradition passes on the context in which a text, song, story, or ritual is to be understood. This idea of Tradition is very Jewish as well (the Talmud contains the written oral Torah, Midrash clarifies the Tanakh, the writings of the Rabbis, the Pirkei Avot, etc. are “Tradition” used to interpret the written Torah).

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[jakasaki]

Question #1

How did you chose your profile name and what does it mean to YOU?

Question #2

How do Gnostics view Islam/muslims/Quran/Muhammad

Thanks!

 

[joe371]

I see what you mean, but it’s hard to draw the line when a person takes viewing an idea in a different lens too far. For example, many Fathers were influenced by Platonic thought, as you said. But this has lead to errors in their thinking as well (the Fathers individually are not infallible). St. Augustine took neo-Platonism too far in some of his ideas on predestination and Original sin. Origen is probably the best example of going way too far off the mark with Greek thought, with the Cappadocian fathers being forgiving somewhat because Origen’s ideas were not condemned yet.

The whole “Sacred Tradition” thing that Apostolic Christians appeal to is the answer to these extremes: tradition passes on the context in which a text, song, story, or ritual is to be understood. This idea of Tradition is very Jewish as well (the Talmud contains the written oral Torah, Midrash clarifies the Tanakh, the writings of the Rabbis, the Pirkei Avot, etc. are “Tradition” used to interpret the written Torah).

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Great point. It was that sacred apostolic tradition, preserved and transmitted via every generation, by God, that was appealed to by the catholic church when heretical movements (and there were many) reared its ugly head, and thank God literally - for God is the protector of the deposit of faith.

 

[joe371]

Hmm I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. I believe I am a Christian on the grounds that I follow the teachings of Christ as found in the Gnostic Gospels-I just don’t fall into you or your institution’s definition of a Christian.

The crux of Christianity: the true God is the Holy Trinity (not the mystical substratum that underlies everything); Jesus is the second divine person of the Holy Trinity; Jesus, as God, is the Savior of the whole world, and you reject all of this, so how can you say: I believe I am a Christian on the grounds that I follow the teachings of Christ?

 

[Lucretius]

Hmm I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. I believe I am a Christian on the grounds that I follow the teachings of Christ as found in the Gnostic Gospels-I just don’t fall into you or your institution’s definition of a Christian.

The Christ of the “Gospel of Mary” or the “Gospel of Thomas” is not the real Christ: these texts are so completely different from authentic Christian texts, were mostly written at least a century after the events, and usually require a “secret tradition” in order to understand them anyway (since the early Gnostic groups died out, the gnosis for understanding their texts has basically been lost: we can’t understand fully the symbolism of the “Gospel of Judas”, for example). Furthermore, these texts were never considered legit in any Christian group: the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas were considered Scripture in some places, but the “Gospel of Thomas” never was, and, in fact, was condemned by St. Irenaeus.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[cmodrmac]

which Gospels do you claim for your movement- Gospel of Thomas and Peter?-also what do you feel about the Mandeans who as far as I knew were the only sizable Gnostic community still extant

 

[Denise1957]

It would be a moral act to help those afflicted with sufferings and would make for a better society. But Gnostics view morality as a secular issue that does not have any spiritual merit. It is more important to concern yourself with your own spiritual cultivation than to devote all of your energy to good works.

So, are you saying that gnosticism teaches that it is not necessary to help those who are suffering?

 

[joe371]

It would be a moral act to help those afflicted with sufferings and would make for a better society. But Gnostics view morality as a secular issue that does not have any spiritual merit. It is more important to concern yourself with your own spiritual cultivation than to devote all of your energy to good works.

This is yet another teaching of Christ that you reject, even though you claim to adhere to His teachings.

If morality is to be left to the secular sphere then we are in trouble. LOL…Just having a little fun.

 

[Sophia_Christ]

I see what you mean, but it’s hard to draw the line when a person takes viewing an idea in a different lens too far. For example, many Fathers were influenced by Platonic thought, as you said. But this has lead to errors in their thinking as well (the Fathers individually are not infallible). St. Augustine took neo-Platonism too far in some of his ideas on predestination and Original sin. Origen is probably the best example of going way too far off the mark with Greek thought, with the Cappadocian fathers being forgiving somewhat because Origen’s ideas were not condemned yet.

The whole “Sacred Tradition” thing that Apostolic Christians appeal to is the answer to these extremes: tradition passes on the context in which a text, song, story, or ritual is to be understood. This idea of Tradition is very Jewish as well (the Talmud contains the written oral Torah, Midrash clarifies the Tanakh, the writings of the Rabbis, the Pirkei Avot, etc. are “Tradition” used to interpret the written Torah).

Christi pax,

Lucretius

You appeal to the infallibility of the apostolic succession as a remedy for Christian thinkers going too “too far” in their interpretation of scripture. I am actually sympathetic with this view in connection with church dogma and find it to be a much more logical position than that of the protestants.

However, it does not serve as a valid argument against Gnostic thought because Gnosticism favors personal experience of the Lord rather than through the dogmatic intermediary of tradition (Catholic) or scripture (Protestant).

I do find great spiritual value in performing certain traditional Gnostic acts and reading scripture-However, I find that I gain the most benefit when I am silently contemplating and becoming absorbed in God-and that is my litmus test for what works.

 

[Sophia_Christ]

The crux of Christianity: the true God is the Holy Trinity; Jesus is the second divine person of the Holy Trinity; Jesus, as God, is the Savior of the whole world

According to your interpretation of the true purport of Christianity…I have a different interpretation.

Hell, you can call me whatever you want though! I believe myself to be a Christian though

 

[Sophia_Christ]

So, are you saying that gnosticism teaches that it is not necessary to help those who are suffering?

It is necessary for the functioning of a moral and just society. These are just things that are separate from one’s spiritual life.

 

[joe371]

According to your interpretation of the true purport of Christianity…I have a different interpretation.

Hell, you can call me whatever you want though! I believe myself to be a Christian though

I am simply going by what you said. I’m not calling you anything. If it’s possible to be a Christian and not believe that the Holy Trinity is God; to not believe that Jesus, (as the second divine person of the Holy Spirit) is God and Savior of the world, then I guess you are a Christian. Heck, believe what you want my friend.

 

[Sophia_Christ]

Question #1

How did you chose your profile name and what does it mean to YOU?

Question #2

How do Gnostics view Islam/muslims/Quran/Muhammad

Thanks!

1. Sophia: Most perfect female emanation of God; Jesus Christ: Most perfect male emanation of God
2. Similar to Christians and Jews, the Gnostic interpretation of Islam is contingent upon the theology they profess. We embrace the mystical Sufi tradition and reject any dogmatic or fundamentalist interpretation of the Quran. We view Allah as a different cultural expression of Jehovah of the Bible-a flawed creator who mistakes himself to be the true God.

 

[Denise1957]

It is necessary for the functioning of a moral and just society. These are just things that are separate from one’s spiritual life.

Do gnostics believe that we are to love our neighbor as ourself, as Jesus said that we should?

 

[Lucretius]

You appeal to the infallibility of the apostolic succession as a remedy for Christian thinkers going too “too far” in their interpretation of scripture. I am actually sympathetic with this view in connection with church dogma and find it to be a much more logical position than that of the protestants.

However, it does not serve as a valid argument against Gnostic thought because Gnosticism favors personal experience of the Lord rather than through the dogmatic intermediary of tradition (Catholic) or scripture (Protestant).

I am not criticizing Gnostic philosophy per se, rather I’m arguing that Gnostic interpretations of Jesus are false.

I do find great spiritual value in performing certain traditional Gnostic acts and reading scripture-However, I find that I gain the most benefit when I am silently contemplating and becoming absorbed in God-and that is my litmus test for what works.

This esoteric type meditation reminds me of some Hindu schools (yoga that trains you to be absorbed into the Atman, who is Brahman). Your philosophy in general sounds very Hinduy Would you say that your thinking is pantheistic (universe = “God”), panentheistic (the universe is “inside” “God”, or just one part among transcendent other parts, the whole being “God”), ditheistic (good god vs evil god, such as Zoroastrianism), etc. ?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[SyroMalankara]

The above post preempted the same post I was about to write. The theology and practices you are espousing seem very Hindu, except, instead of traditional Hindu Scripture you choose to accept Christian-themed apocrypha - perfectly acceptable in some schools of Hinduism. However, it’s a bit of a stretch to call this practice “Christian” or I suppose really “Gnostic”, since Gnosticism emanated from a certain culture time and place. The closest ‘thing’ I’d call this is some form of Hinduism or neo-Gnosticism. Since you stated you have studied these and some monotheistic faiths, isn’t it entirely possible that you’ve constructed a system in your own mind, one that isn’t necessarily accurate but is acceptable to your state in life at the current time?