Ask a Gnostic Anything

[Denise1957]

A good number of Valentinus’ writings, as well as other writings from the Valentinian school of thought, were preserved in the Nag Hammadi Library which sat buried in clay pots in Egypt for about 1600 years. These include the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Truth, as well as other fragments, exegeses, and homilies.

The Nag Hammadi collection was discovered in 1945, and it is believed that they were most likely buried by monks from the nearby Pachomian monastery, after Bishop Athanasius condemned the use of non-canonical books in 367.

So modern gnostics have derived their beliefs based on fragments found in clay pots in 1945. Got it.

 

[joe371]

I’m having trouble finding that quote in this thread, but I think there might be a misunderstanding here. Gnostic scripture, particularly the writings of Valentius, makes one of the earliest and most explicit references to the Holy Trinity, of which Christ is a part – the Son. There is a bit of a distinction between the person of Jesus and the Aeon Christ who incarnated in the person of Jesus.

As far as God not being the true God – you have to understand that Gnostics see the God that Jesus called “Father” as the true God, the ineffable God, the Unknown Father from Whom all of existence emanated. That God, the Light above the Aeons, is not the same as the demiurge who fashioned the physical universe. So Christ is the Son of God, but not the son of the demiurge. He is the Messianic or Christic Savior of the world, but not by dying on the cross for our sins, rather by bringing us the knowledge of the Truth that makes free. Christ also dwells within each one of us at the core of our being, and so without Christ there can be no Gnosis. As a person of the Trinity, Gnosis comes from Christ, as well as from the Father and the Holy Spirit, because they are One.

Just curious: Jesus’ death on the cross, not serving a purpose in term of the forgiveness of sins, and opening up the pearly gates of heaven is tantamount to denying the central teaching of Christianity- right? Or have I missed something?

 

[curtish1947]

The demiurge isn’t really a god, he’s the chief archon who fancies himself to be the only god there is – I guess you could call him a false god. As stated in the Apocryphon of John: “And when he saw the creation which surrounded him, and the multitude of the angels around him which had come forth from him, he said to them, ‘I am a jealous God, and there is no other God beside me.’ But by announcing this he indicated to the angels who attended him that there exists another God. For if there were no other one, of whom would he be jealous?”

Re: Post 95 – I’d agree with most of that… Jesus certainly didn’t fulfill the messianic prophecies as the Jews expected them to play out, but the Christ (Messiah) certainly came down upon Jesus as declared in the scriptures. I don’t concern myself too much with the Hebrew prophecies either though, so it doesn’t matter either way if Jesus was the Messiah of IHVH or Ialdabaoth the demiurge, or even if IHVH and the demiurge are identical – Christ still came from the one True God to save us.

Re: Post 101 – At first I disagreed, and then I re-read it. There is a Trinity, we can’t deny that, and to do so would be to ignore scripture, both canonical and Gnostic. But I think the key point in her statement is that “[o]n the ultimate level” God is the singularity from which all aeons and existence have emanated, and share in His eternal existence.

Hi,
Finally three hours after reading all of this. I only came to my first post. Then I was interrupted. It is now one hour later.
Your beliefs, if they are only that and I am not saying at all that your knowledge may go beyond belief to fact only I don’t think you have stated that yet, are simple in one sense. There is one true God, and one of possibly many emanations of that one true God is Wisdom, who she wanting to know God made Jehovah as you word that, and Jehovah made all what we think of as creation, as flawed as both Jehovah and creation is.
How’s that?

 

[joe371]

The demiurge isn’t really a god, he’s the chief archon who fancies himself to be the only god there is – I guess you could call him a false god. As stated in the Apocryphon of John: “And when he saw the creation which surrounded him, and the multitude of the angels around him which had come forth from him, he said to them, ‘I am a jealous God, and there is no other God beside me.’ But by announcing this he indicated to the angels who attended him that there exists another God. For if there were no other one, of whom would he be jealous?”

Just trying to find some consistency/commonality: Sophia said: “The true God is beyond any description, adjective, or religious creed. He is the mystical substratum that underlies everything seen and unseen. He can only be experienced, not explained”. Is that the demiurge, who you claim is a false god?

 

[curtish1947]

In as much as Christ is revered and talked about in the Gnostic Gospels, you are Christian that way. Is that also your postion.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

So modern gnostics have derived their beliefs based on fragments found in clay pots in 1945. Got it.

Well it’s not only fragments found in 1945… There were entire texts preserved in there, as well as various other scriptures discovered previous to 1945.

This is a good place to start if you’d like to see exactly how much scripture is available to us now: gnosis.org/library.html

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Well it’s not only fragments found in 1945… There were entire texts preserved in there, as well as various other scriptures discovered previous to 1945.

This is a good place to start if you’d like to see exactly how much scripture is available to us now: gnosis.org/library.html

The problem with these Gnostic Gospels is that pretty much all of them were denounced as forgeries shortly after they were written in the centuries after Christ’s death. Why would they be any more valid now than they were then?

 

[joe371]

The problem with these Gnostic Gospels is that pretty much all of them were denounced as forgeries shortly after they were written in the centuries after Christ’s death. Why would they be any more valid now than they were then?

That is a real good question for a Gnostic claiming to be Christian deferring to only the bible, as opposed to writings that did not make the cut.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Just curious: Jesus’ death on the cross, not serving a purpose in term of the forgiveness of sins, and opening up the pearly gates of heaven is tantamount to denying the central teaching of Christianity- right? Or have I missed something?

It’s outright denying a central teaching of western orthodox Christianity, yes… But Gnostics are not orthodox Christians.

Even from what I understand of Eastern Orthodoxy – and maybe Eastern Orthodox Christians can correct me here if I’m wrong – Christ’s death isn’t seen as a means of forgiveness for sins, but rather as His triumph over death and the devil.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Hi,
Finally three hours after reading all of this. I only came to my first post. Then I was interrupted. It is now one hour later.
Your beliefs, if they are only that and I am not saying at all that your knowledge may go beyond belief to fact only I don’t think you have stated that yet, are simple in one sense. There is one true God, and one of possibly many emanations of that one true God is Wisdom, who she wanting to know God made Jehovah as you word that, and Jehovah made all what we think of as creation, as flawed as both Jehovah and creation is.
How’s that?

The word “Jehovah” doesn’t appear anywhere in Gnostic scripture. It’s actually a fairly recent mispronunciation of IHVH… Even IHVH doesn’t appear in Gnostic scripture, rather the demiurge who created the universe is called Ialdabaoth, Saklas, and Samael. He’s not explicitly identified with IHVH, but from his description and the stories told about him by the Gnostics, the implication seems to be that Ialdabaoth and IHVH are the same being.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Just trying to find some consistency/commonality: Sophia said: “The true God is beyond any description, adjective, or religious creed. He is the mystical substratum that underlies everything seen and unseen. He can only be experienced, not explained”. Is that the demiurge, who you claim is a false god?

The demiurge is the false god. The True God is the Ineffable Father who is beyond any description, and is not the same as the demiurge.

 

[Denise1957]

Well it’s not only fragments found in 1945… There were entire texts preserved in there, as well as various other scriptures discovered previous to 1945.

This is a good place to start if you’d like to see exactly how much scripture is available to us now: gnosis.org/library.html

I asked Sophia about the remaining fragments of the writings of Valentinus. As it turns out, there are a few texts, supposedly (but not proven) of Valentinus from papers found in the clay pots in 1945. Hardly conclusive.

I’m not interested in viewing the link to gnostic websites. I’ll read St. Ireneaus’ take on the matter, since he wrote extensively on the gnostic heresy. I’ve already started reading some of his work.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

The problem with these Gnostic Gospels is that pretty much all of them were denounced as forgeries shortly after they were written in the centuries after Christ’s death. Why would they be any more valid now than they were then?

It’s convenient to denounce something as a forgery if they don’t support your agenda, while claiming that the texts that do support your agenda are authentic. The fact is, even with canonical scripture, we don’t have any original documents. We can rely on linguistic and historical clues to try and date them, but that’s the best we can do – Many of the epistles attributed to St. Paul have been found by scholars to be pseudepigraphal. There is also linguistic evidence to suggest that the Gospel of Thomas likely dates to an earlier time than the canonical gospels.

Of course, when it comes to dating any of the scriptures, Biblical or otherwise, the best we can do is guess. The denunciation of a text based on an ancient clergyman’s word isn’t very strong evidence. It’s also important to consider the creative nature of the Gnostics based on their experience of Gnosis – they continued to write as a way of expressing what they had experienced. They were accused of “writing a new gospel every day”, but really, the creative nature of Gnosticism is an important one because it allows us to express ineffable experiences through myth so that others can learn from them, and, hopefully, come to Gnosis themselves.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

I’m not interested in viewing the link to gnostic websites. I’ll read St. Ireneaus’ take on the matter, since he wrote extensively on the gnostic heresy. I’ve already started reading some of his work.

That’s like relying on a Baptist to explain Catholicism… But suit yourself.

 

[curtish1947]

The word “Jehovah” doesn’t appear anywhere in Gnostic scripture. It’s actually a fairly recent mispronunciation of IHVH… Even IHVH doesn’t appear in Gnostic scripture, rather the demiurge who created the universe is called Ialdabaoth, Saklas, and Samael. He’s not explicitly identified with IHVH, but from his description and the stories told about him by the Gnostics, the implication seems to be that Ialdabaoth and IHVH are the same being.

The idea though, as it was presented by the poster of (Ask a Gnostic Anything), is that correct in Gnosticism?
Is there one true God, from whom at least a female type of entity came from?
Did not that female entity make another entity?
Did not this entity made by the female entity make all of creation, including me?
Do you not call the entity made from Wisdom, Sophia or whatever name you choose for that concept, flawed.
Is that not why the world we live in, is flawed?
Is that not roughly your belief?

 

[joe371]

=gnosisofthomas;12641048]The demiurge is the false god. The True God is the Ineffable Father who is beyond any description, and is not the same as the demiurge.

OK. Is the Father, who is the true God, the same Father of the Trinity?

 

[Denise1957]

That’s like relying on a Baptist to explain Catholicism… But suit yourself.

I must wholeheartedly disagree. Here’s a link to the writings of St. Ireneaus regarding the gnostic view of what the demiurge is, in #3:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.vi.html

So far, in St. Ireneaus writings against the heresies of the gnostics, that I’ve read, he doesn’t mention doesn’t mention St. Philip, or St. Thomas. He no doubt would have known about it, if they were really gnostics.

 

[Denise1957]

Here are the complete works of St. Irenaeus regarding the gnostics. It’s very extensive. Scroll down about two-thirds of the way to find the beginning of his work, under “IRENAEUS.” All five books are included.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.toc.html

 

[curtish1947]

Hi,
Futher did not Shophia tell us that truth of the God the non flawed God, come from meditating on the Divine Spark as you call it, and that is more accurate than anything written about The God?

 

[joe371]

Hi,
Futher did not Shophia tell us that truth of the God the non flawed God, come from meditating on the Divine Spark as you call it, and that is more accurate than anything written about The God?

:yup: Sophia said: “Right. On the ultimate level, there is no trinity.”