Ask a Gnostic Anything

[joe371]

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.

Do you worship Jehovah of the Bible - a flawed creator who mistakes himself to be the true God, or do you worship the true God?

 

[Lucretius]

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.

Hinduism as a whole is very synthetic: it’s like a wild jungle. Hinduism is what happens when you take a bunch of rituals, philosophies, wisdom, and myths on the Indian subcontinent over a few thousand years and mix then together. It’s sort of like “paganism” in the West: there are so many different ways of thinking and worshiping, with so many different gods, some which logically contradict each other: they take “different strokes (yogas) for different folks” very seriously. Just as the Romans synchronized many different religions in Europe together (Thor = Zeus = Jupiter, Odin = Hermes = Mercury), the Indians did the same thing, only Hinduism was formed naturally and unconsciously over time, while the Roman State Cult was forced together, to keep better relations with the people they subjected to their rule.
The good news: this makes Hindus very tolerant (this may be a swear word on this website ) of other viewpoints. To put it another way, in Hinduism, many viewpoints is valid (Nazism and like are not, however). A Hindu saint wrote that Krishna and Christ are somewhat different expression in different cultures of the same idea (dying and rising again). I have a feeling our forum host might agree with this understanding

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Gorgias]

The significance of historical events are still up to interpretation. For example, Catholics and Calvinists both believe that the events of the Gospels literally happened, yet they’ve arrived at different conclusions as to the purport of them.

Yes! Precisely!
Sophia Christ:

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.

And, so, it’s particularly disappointing that you chose to not respond to the rest of my post: what is it that gives you certainty in the interpretations you espouse? What is it that tells you that your interpretation is more believable than Calvinists’ or Catholics’? What is it that tells you that the ‘spiritual value’ that you experience is ‘true’… and not just a personal opinion?

(A Catholic would respond with the assurances of Jesus vis-a-vis His Church and the Apostles to whom He entrusted it. What assurances do you have?)

 

[SyroMalankara]

To put it another way, in Hinduism, many viewpoints is valid (Nazism and like are not, however). A Hindu saint wrote that Krishna and Christ are somewhat different expression in different cultures of the same idea (dying and rising again). I have a feeling our forum host might agree with this understanding

Christi pax,

Lucretius

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, except for one point. Nazism, or fascism, is just as valid a path as any within the wider Hindu context. There is nothing inherently abhorrent about it, as the caste system shows. The same mentality is active today in the Hindutva movement in India, a sort of neo-fascist Hinduism movement.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

Gnosticism was suppressed by the powers that be in the beginning of the 3rd century AD. It has existed since then in esoteric circles across the world. There has also been an exponential incline in Gnostic interest ever since the discovery of the Nag Hammadi scriptures in 1945. I believe this trend will continue as more resources are made explicitly available.

If Gnostic Christianity has been suppressed by (presumably) orthodox Christianity over the ages and has only existed in esoteric circles, how can you be sure that the teachings you’ve received are the true, gnosis of Jesus? On what authority do you determine this?

 

[Lucretius]

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, except for one point. Nazism, or fascism, is just as valid a path as any within the wider Hindu context. There is nothing inherently abhorrent about it, as the caste system shows. The same mentality is active today in the Hindutva movement in India, a sort of neo-fascist Hinduism movement.

In a sense, I guess you’re right. I have a tendency to see the good in people, so I assumed that, even though fascism may fit into Hinduism logically, their consciences might get in the way before it got too dangerous. However, this never stopped Germans in 1940-1945 from participating in the slaughter that is the Holocaust. I’m not an expert on Indian history, but I understand that the caste system is the WORSE baggage of the traditional Indian worldview that still exists in the world today. Gandhi spent much of his life trying to correct it.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Denise1957]

And, so, it’s particularly disappointing that you chose to not respond to the rest of my post: what is it that gives you certainty in the interpretations you espouse? What is it that tells you that your interpretation is more believable than Calvinists’ or Catholics’? What is it that tells you that the ‘spiritual value’ that you experience is ‘true’… and not just a personal opinion?

(A Catholic would respond with the assurances of Jesus vis-a-vis His Church and the Apostles to whom He entrusted it. What assurances do you have?)

I hope that Sophia Christ will respond to your good questions above. I was wondering about pretty much the same things.

(Supposed) truth based on personal experience is subjective, and seems like a form of immanentism to me. If truth is based on personal experiences gained through meditation, (as has been claimed) then all of the different gnostic groups (including sophia gnostics) would all believe the same thing. But they don’t.

 

[Sophia_Christ]

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

Haha. I understand why you might get this impression but the truth is there are mystical strains of all Western religions. John of the Cross’ Infused contemplation, Jewish Kaballah, and Sufi Islam all sound very “Hindu-y,” but that is only because the emphasis tends to be on the exoteric forms of these religions.

I would not be comfortable labeling Gnosticism as pantheistic because as I said the universe is flawed. Nor would I call it ditheistic because I do not view Jehovah as evil, just imperfect. I guess Gnosticism could be called panentheistic in a sense but I believe this to be a reductionist interpretation.

 

[Sophia_Christ]

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?

Interesting psychological sentiment but I would contend that what I have professed falls in line with Valentinian Gnosticism. I would be lying if I said that the way I express this worldview was not somewhat influenced by Eastern modes of thought and I acknowledge that my interpretation is not orthodox in nature.But this has much to do with the depth psychology of Jung and Quispel as well.

 

[Sophia_Christ]

Do you worship Jehovah of the Bible - a flawed creator who mistakes himself to be the true God, or do you worship the true God?

The true God.

 

[Sophia_Christ]

A Hindu saint wrote that Krishna and Christ are somewhat different expression in different cultures of the same idea (dying and rising again). I have a feeling our forum host might agree with this understanding

Christi pax,

Lucretius

I am sympathetic with this viewpoint to a certain degree. However, worship of Krishna is found in the Vaisnava tradition of Hinduism and there are many theological points that I disagree with therein.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

The true God.

What’s the back story on Him? You said that the God of the old testament is imperfect. So you believe that there are 2 Gods, but only worship the “real” one? Did your God create the God of the OT?

 

[Sophia_Christ]

And, so, it’s particularly disappointing that you chose to not respond to the rest of my post: what is it that gives you certainty in the interpretations you espouse? What is it that tells you that your interpretation is more believable than Calvinists’ or Catholics’? What is it that tells you that the ‘spiritual value’ that you experience is ‘true’… and not just a personal opinion?

(A Catholic would respond with the assurances of Jesus vis-a-vis His Church and the Apostles to whom He entrusted it. What assurances do you have?)

Sorry Gorgias!

Why I believe that my interpretation is true is that in Gnosticism, once you gain a certain amount of preliminary information as to the principles of the practice, there is nothing external which must be called upon in order to experience the divine. If you take away the mass from the Catholics or the KJV from the Calvinists, their spiritual practice would come to a deadlock. I could never read the Gospel of St. Thomas again and my practice would continue to develop and flourish.

Note: This applies only to Catholics and Protestants who only focus on the exoteric principles of their religion and ignore the mystical aspect

 

[Sophia_Christ]

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, except for one point. Nazism, or fascism, is just as valid a path as any within the wider Hindu context. There is nothing inherently abhorrent about it, as the caste system shows. The same mentality is active today in the Hindutva movement in India, a sort of neo-fascist Hinduism movement.

Oh come on let’s not generalize. Comparing the entire Hindu religion to Hindutva is like comparing all Christians to the Westboro Baptist Church. It is a logical fallacy to try to make a point about a group by only drawing on an example of their most extreme adherents.

 

[Sophia_Christ]

(Supposed) truth based on personal experience is subjective, and seems like a form of immanentism to me. If truth is based on personal experiences gained through meditation, (as has been claimed) then all of the different gnostic groups (including sophia gnostics) would all believe the same thing. But they don’t.

I don’t follow-it appears that you’re limiting an omnipotent entity by saying that its truth could only be revealed in one singular form to all people…

 

[Lucretius]

Haha. I understand why you might get this impression but the truth is there are mystical strains of all Western religions. John of the Cross’ Infused contemplation, Jewish Kaballah, and Sufi Islam all sound very “Hindu-y,” but that is only because the emphasis tends to be on the exoteric forms of these religions.

I was referring to:

…I am silently contemplating and becoming absorbed in God…

St. John of the Cross (and St. Thomas Aquinas, who influenced him) do not teach being “absorbed” into God, like an egg getting mixed into and becoming part of the batter. Rather, they teach that we “participate in the Divine Nature”, we “become God by participation”, or we “become by Grace what God is by Nature” (St. Athanasius: “God became man, so that men could become gods.”). St John beautifully uses an example of a window being cleaned:

Here is an example that will provide a better understanding of this
explanation. A ray of sunlight shining on a smudgy window is unable to
illumine that window completely and transform it into its own light. It
could do this if the window were cleaned and polished. The less the film
and stain are wiped away, the less the window will be illumined; and the
cleaner the window is, the brighter will be its illumination. The extent of
illumination is not dependent on the ray of sunlight but on the window. If
the window is totally clean and pure, the sunlight will so transform and
illumine it that to all appearances the window will be identical with the
ray of sunlight and shine just as the sun’s ray. Although obviously the
nature of the window is distinct from that of the sun’s ray (even if the
two seem identical), we can assert that the window is the ray or light of
the sun by participation. The soul on which the divine light of God’s being
is ever shining, or better, in which it is ever dwelling by nature, is like
this window, as we have affirmed.

Esoteric mysticism is not Hinduy in itself, and is certainly not foreign to Apostolic Christians. One of my critiques of Protestant thought is that they distorted the traditional understanding of Grace (specifically sanctifying Grace), and lost this understanding of what the east calls “theosis” and the west calls “deification” It’s just that we Abrahamic religionists judge esoteric experiences with an exoteric standard (the Torah, the Magisterium, the Gospels, the Quran, etc.). The eastern Asians (usually) do not, and so has a tendency to fall into pluralism, claiming that mutually exclusive experiences of Truth are both true, which is insane

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[joe371]

What’s the back story on Him? You said that the God of the old testament is imperfect. So you believe that there are 2 Gods, but only worship the “real” one? Did your God create the God of the OT?

No, Sophia Christ does not believe that the holy Trinity is God; does not believe that Jesus is God i.e. she does not worship the Holy trinity and does not believe that Jesus is the savior of the world via His atoning work on the cross.

 

[Sophia_Christ]

What’s the back story on Him? You said that the God of the old testament is imperfect. So you believe that there are 2 Gods, but only worship the “real” one? Did your God create the God of the OT?

In precosmic times, there was one monistic entity without a second. In time, other beings began to emanate from this primordial source. One of these beings was Sophia; a feminine entity who is Wisdom personified. In order to break the monotony of the perpetual harmony that was taking place in this divine play, Sophia created a being who was imperfect. This being mistook himself to be the original, true God from which everything initially emanated. But really he was only half divine and half matter. He created an imperfect universe and “created man in his own image” which means that they, like their creator had an element of divinity in them yet were still susceptible to the temptations of material nature.

Thus goes the Gnostic story of creation and it is a MYTH. In fact, it is believed by many modern Gnostics to be allegorical the workings of our psyche. The true God is our actual self and material nature is the ego. The creative energy of Sophia represents the human tendency to give life to this false entity that is the ego which brings man further away from God. It now follows that it is the responsibility of man to reject the temptations of material nature (ego) and merge their consciousness with God (true self). I really find the Gnostic creation story to be quite profound psychologically and I think most would agree if they look at it objectively.

 

[Servant19]

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.

I find your use of the term “emanation” very interesting.

Would you mind elaborating on what you mean by emanation and how it relates to God and cosmology please?



.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

In precosmic times, there was one monistic entity without a second. In time, other beings began to emanate from this primordial source. One of these beings was Sophia; a feminine entity who is Wisdom personified. In order to break the monotony of the perpetual harmony that was taking place in this divine play, Sophia created a being who was imperfect. This being mistook himself to be the original, true God from which everything initially emanated. But really he was only half divine and half matter. He created an imperfect universe and “created man in his own image” which means that they, like their creator had an element of divinity in them yet were still susceptible to the temptations of material nature.

Thus goes the Gnostic story of creation and it is a MYTH.

OK, so there is the “true God,” Sophia, who was tired of harmony and created a being who had a big ego and decided to create a universe because of it? Yes?
So was this true god mad at Sophia? If Sophia is wisdom personified, didn’t she kinda do something stupid by creating this guy who thought he was the original? Because my lacking of fully understanding your view, maybe, is that Sophia wasn’t as smart as she thought. Also, is there other God like beings besides the true god, Sophia, and the imperfect being?
Also, if it is just a myth, what has to be believed by you?