Ask a Gnostic Anything

[gnosisofthomas]

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.

So because he didn’t refer to every single book, that means they didn’t exist? I’m really not sure what your point was…

I’ve read the entirety of Against Heresies. I’ve also read Against the Valentinians by Tertullian. Reading the so-called heresiological texts is not without benefit; they were largely pretty accurate in their descriptions, despite their biased and polemical nature. That said, if you truly want to understand what Gnosticism is actually about, it’s beneficial to read the Gnostics in their own words. Just as it’s beneficial to read about Catholicism from Catholic writers, and not from a Protestant who just wants to prove how wrong Catholics are.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

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?

To put it simply, yes, that basically sums it up.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

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

Yes.

 

[Denise1957]

So because he didn’t refer to every single book, that means they didn’t exist? I’m really not sure what your point was…

I’ve read the entirety of Against Heresies. I’ve also read Against the Valentinians by Tertullian. Reading the so-called heresiological texts is not without benefit; they were largely pretty accurate in their descriptions, despite their biased and polemical nature. That said, if you truly want to understand what Gnosticism is actually about, it’s beneficial to read the Gnostics in their own words. Just as it’s beneficial to read about Catholicism from Catholic writers, and not from a Protestant who just wants to prove how wrong Catholics are.

Correct: they didn’t exist. None of the Apostles were gnostics. That’s my point. St Irenaeus would have known about it if they were. It’s good to bear in mind that, unlike the gnostics, the Early Church Fathers paid attention to and adhered to the Ten Commandments, especially the 8th commandment about being honest. Honesty was important to them. The gnostics, OTOH, felt that they were not bound to them, isn’t that correct?

 

[curtish1947]

To put it simply, yes, that basically sums it up.

Hi Again and thanks,
Wow that and including hopefully that whatever is learned from the “Divine Spark” is the untimate truth is also a belief of Gnostics.
…Curtis/K.

 

[Lucretius]

Some texts are harder to interpret than others. The context in which to read Scripture survives in Sacred Tradition. The 21st century is removed from the context, which is why certain scholars (Jesus Seminar) read Jesus as a traveling wise man or a social rebel. Our culture likes traveling wise men and social rebels. The 15th century is also removed, so Scholastic nominalism, as well as Theological voluntarism, which were popular at the time, are used to read Scripture, once the context of Tradition was removed. This is Protestantism, with its faith alone and view of Grace as simply divine favor, as opposed to a participation in the Divinity.

As you can see above, Scripture isn’t so simple that it can’t be read without context, since interpretation has gone crazy. But Gnostic tradition was close to the events, so isn’t it valid? No, because it is based on a Greek worldview, and not a Jewish worldview, which is what Sacred Tradition is based on. So, we should prefer the Jewish worldview interpretation, rather than the Gnostic, as I point out in post #90. I also mention in post #109 that no Gnostic text that mentions Christ was ever considered Scripture. When the Church discerned Scripture, they looked at books that were consider valid in different parts of the empire. Gnostic texts were not even mentioned. They were irrelevant.

In conclusion, who the Gnostics claim to be the historical Christ is historical false. Gnostic philosophy may or may not be true, but “Christian Gnosticism” doesn’t hold.

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.

St. Irenaeus was of the 2rd generation of Bishops from the Apostles: very close to the events… He wrote a series of books called Against Heresies in the 100s (as you can see, Gnosticism was dismissed by Christians as early as that). I think this link is easier to navigate: newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm

The funny thing is: for the longest time, all we knew about the Gnostics was through the Church Fathers. Many scholars thought they exaggerated Gnostic beliefs (why? It’s not like Christianity was legal. They couldn’t FORCE people to convert. They had to argue. And how can you convince your opponent if you lie about their own beliefs? They would know you were lying right away :whacky: ). But, anyway, when the Nag Hammadi library was found (as well as others) we learned once and for all that St. Irenaeus knew exactly what he was talking about, and he is simply DEVASTATING to the Gnostics

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[curtish1947]

Hi,
It is nice that you are posting here, but how can any Catholic or Jewish person refute information that comes from within you?
…Curt/K.

 

[curtish1947]

Hi,
Or accept information that only comes from within you?
…Curt/K.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Do Gnostic Christians accept the Gospel of Matthew as the inspired Word of God?

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Do Gnostic Christians accept the Gospel of Matthew as the inspired Word of God?

Gnostics don’t accept a canon of scripture as the inspired word of God. But we do read the Gospel of Matthew… In my Church, at least, it’s included in the lectionary.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Correct: they didn’t exist. None of the Apostles were gnostics. That’s my point. St Irenaeus would have known about it if they were. It’s good to bear in mind that, unlike the gnostics, the Early Church Fathers paid attention to and adhered to the Ten Commandments, especially the 8th commandment about being honest. Honesty was important to them. The gnostics, OTOH, felt that they were not bound to them, isn’t that correct?

I feel bad, I’ve kind of taken over Sophia’s thread with my own responses. Sorry Sophia!

Denise: Since Irenaeus was writing about the Gnostic mythos, he wouldn’t have needed to quote from the Gospel of Philip or the Gospel of Thomas, because neither of those contain any narrative. The Gospel of Philip is a sacramental text, and the Gospel of Thomas is a collection of sayings by Jesus. The fact that he left them out just shows that they were irrelevant to what he was writing about, not that he didn’t know of their existence… We can’t assume one way or another.

Can you actually prove that the apostles weren’t Gnostics, in the sense that they believed knowledge to be necessary for salvation? Or that they passed on inner teachings to their students? There seems to be a period in early Christianity where Gnostic terminology was acceptable amongst those who would become regarded as orthodox. St. Paul refers to both knowledge (gnosis) and falsely so-called knowledge (pseudonymos gnosis), and makes references to the importance of gnosis throughout his writings. Spiritual knowledge of the divine was also important to St. Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Origen. We can also see hints of gnostic thought in the early Christian Odes of Solomon, which tend to focus on a more orthodox Christology – but, like I said, they demonstrate a period when gnostic terminology seems to be more or less acceptable throughout all of Christianity. We even know that the Valentinians worshiped right alongside other Christians, and Valentinus was nearly elected pope of Rome, according to Tertullian. It wasn’t until well after his death that Valentinianism was considered heretical. Eventually there does come a point when gnostic terminology is avoided, although it tends to remain more popular in the east.

Gnostics largely regard the law as a product of the archons, that’s true. But the apostles themselves also regarded the law as largely irrelevant to Christians, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. That doesn’t mean that all moral guidelines were null and void, that doesn’t mean that lying was suddenly acceptable. The Gospel of Thomas says, “Do not lie, and do not do what you hate.” Some Gnostic sects were extremely ascetic and had very strict moral and practical guidelines comparable to monastic vows, which earned them criticism from other Christians.

 

[curtish1947]

Hi,
I did mean that according to Sophia, to get close to “God” you have to get to the real you. The real you was referred to as the “Divine Spark” it seems to me. To escape our prison the earth and the universe, one had to meditate on the “Divine Spark” within us.
All of Gnosticism seems to progress out of one person or the other, getting in touch. SophiaChrist says Jesus did that, but still somehow stayed in touch with the material world.
So in context, as it seems when connecting the two ideas Biblically and Gnosticism, but deferring to Gnosticism here. God The Father Biblically is a false god, who made us, begot Jesus, and then sent Him to come to earth to repair what was made wrong. But the God who made us is flawed, jealousy is one of those flaws, Gnostically speaking. He this flawed God, sent his only begotten son (Christian thoughts) to make up for what had gone wrong, with us, and did not in fact curse therefore make creation that was perfect bad, but it was always bad. And it was always bad because those who can communicate with the “Divine Spark” within themselves have told us so.
Is that right and I am trying to understand. I am also trying to put this into the Christian context, but deferring to your religion, while doing that?
…Curt/K.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Do Gnostic Christians accept the Gospel of Matthew as the inspired Word of God?

Gnostics don’t accept a canon of scripture as the inspired word of God. But we do read the Gospel of Matthew… In my Church, at least, it’s included in the lectionary.

Then as you know, Jesus told His disciples:

Matthew 28:19-20
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

Could you please describe how Gnostic Christianity qualifies as the one Church that Jesus promised to build upon Peter the rock (cf. Mt. 16:18-19) in light of His command to that Church to make disciples of all nations?

 

[curtish1947]

Hi,
I did mean that according to Sophia, to get close to “God” you have to get to the real you. The real you was referred to as the “Divine Spark” it seems to me. To escape our prison the earth and the universe, one had to meditate on the “Divine Spark” within us.
All of Gnosticism seems to progress out of one person or the other, getting in touch. SophiaChrist says Jesus did that, but still somehow stayed in touch with the material world.
So in context, as it seems when connecting the two ideas Biblically and Gnosticism, but deferring to Gnosticism here. God The Father Biblically is a false god, who made us, begot Jesus, and then sent Him to come to earth to repair what was made wrong. But the God who made us is flawed, jealousy is one of those flaws, Gnostically speaking. He this flawed God, sent his only begotten son (Christian thoughts) to make up for what had gone wrong, with us, and did not in fact curse therefore make creation that was perfect bad, but it was always bad. And it was always bad because those who can communicate with the “Divine Spark” within themselves have told us so.
Is that right and I am trying to understand. I am also trying to put this into the Christian context, but deferring to your religion, while doing that?
…Curt/K.

The Catholics also say, in their Apostles Creed about angels, that God made them. He made the invisible and the visible. In your context, the flawed creation of Sophia made the one the Christians call God.
Now God, Biblically said, that he never intended for Adam to fall, nor for Eve to fall, but that it was the envy of Lucifer that caused this. And there is no logical reason for anyone to oppose their creator, but that is what is there.
Now therefore Lucifer, and once nice guy did something wrong and the earth is what you call flawed because of that.
If the above is true about Lucifer, then why is the Christian point of view not reasonable, and a very reasonable explanation for a world that has problems?

 

[Lucretius]

Can you actually prove that the apostles weren’t Gnostics, in the sense that they believed knowledge to be necessary for salvation? Or that they passed on inner teachings to their students? There seems to be a period in early Christianity where Gnostic terminology was acceptable amongst those who would become regarded as orthodox. St. Paul refers to both knowledge (gnosis) and falsely so-called knowledge (pseudonymos gnosis), and makes references to the importance of gnosis throughout his writings. Spiritual knowledge of the divine was also important to St. Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Origen. We can also see hints of gnostic thought in the early Christian Odes of Solomon, which tend to focus on a more orthodox Christology – but, like I said, they demonstrate a period when gnostic terminology seems to be more or less acceptable throughout all of Christianity. We even know that the Valentinians worshiped right alongside other Christians, and Valentinus was nearly elected pope of Rome, according to Tertullian. It wasn’t until well after his death that Valentinianism was considered heretical. Eventually there does come a point when gnostic terminology is avoided, although it tends to remain more popular in the east.

The Apostles were Jews. Their writings come in two flavors: Christian Jews writing to Jews and Christian Jews writing to (Greek) pagans. Why would I read them with a Gnostic worldview when the Jewish worldview would make more sense? St. Paul’s letters, for example, are basically him trying to explain Judeo-Christian concepts to Greeks (he translates Yetzer-tov (good-intention) as “spirit” and Yetzer-ra (evil-intention, or concupiscence) as “flesh” in Romans; thus he uses Greek (or Gnostic/neo-platonic terms) to explain Hebrew, for example) as well as explain Church discipline. Apparently, St. Paul was hard to understand (and is, by Protestants), as he himself comments in some of his epistles. St. Peter also points this out in 2nd? Peter.

The Apostles did not have inner teachings; they had outer teachings. They and the Bishops they passed it on to got killed for preaching these teachings. Oral Tradition is very Jewish: the Mishnah is the oral Torah written down, for example (see post #105).

Origen was once considered THE Church father; St. Basil was a follower of him BEFORE a Church council condemned much of his stuff. Sometimes the Fathers go too far with Greek thought (again see post #105). Individual Fathers are not infallible. The fact that you mention St. Irenaeus as supporting Gnostic thought is just laughable (he wrote the anti-Gnostic textbook). Christians don’t deny spiritual knowledge. We simply claim that one is not saved by spiritual knowledge, but by sanctifying Grace. Gnosticism isn’t always wrong: it’s incomplete and excessive on certain points: that’s why you can read Gnosticism into Scripture and the Fathers.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

Sophia Christ (and gnosisofthomas):

What are your thoughts on Hermeticism? What about Astrology? Theurgy (I think Sophia might have mentioned distancing him/her self from it)?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[meltzerboy]

Gnostics view the Old Testament as a revelation of experience brought about by devotion to Jehovah. In order to understand this, it will be necessary to explain the Gnostic position on Jehovah. He is seen as the ‘Demiurge;’ a flawed creator who is a product of the true, deific God who is the original source of everything. The logic is that Jehovah is imperfect because the world is imperfect. In addition, this explains why he has flawed characteristics such as jealousy.

We see the Gnostic Gospels (Thomas, Judas, Mary Magdalene, etc.) as the highest expression of the truth in Christian terms as these put the mainstream Old Testament texts into the proper context.

Then who IS the real G-d according to the Gnostics? Judaism believes that G-d created the world INTENTIONALLY imperfect because of His partnership with mankind, whose goal is to make it a better world for everyone by repairing it. Also, G-d is NOT jealous in the ordinary meaning of the word in English. If you do research on the meaning of the word in Hebrew, you will find the term in its proper scriptural context refers to the idea that G-d loves us greatly.

 

[stavros388]

Interesting Stavros, I personally find that humility is a salient theme in Gnosticism because of the emphasis to transcend the ego which is the source of pride.

Also, I am not denying that there is apparent beauty, magnificence, and awesomeness in the material world. Just that it is not perfect. If you recall in a previous post, I stated that the creator was half divine and half material. The beauty in the world can be credited to the divine and the ugliness to the material.

Nowhere did I find the kind of humility in Gnostic Christianity that exists in Catholic and Orthodox Christianity. It might be a “theme”, even a salient one, but in orthodox Christianity, it is all important and must be lived. Even contemporary Orthodox Saint Silouan of Mt. Athos, who was apparently very spiritually adept, had to come to face to face with his own utter poverty and hidden pride in order to “advance”, spiritually. From my understanding, Gnosticism is more of a do-it-yourself project, wherein grace is not something that is sought after. Am I correct? Traditional Christianity, while requiring our efforts, is not… we rely on the mercy and grace of God. Also, as Christianity is the religion of love, it is a do-it-together for all of creation kind of project. Gnosticism is rather elitist; only the really clever and/or intuitive people “get it”. Not much room for humility in that view!

I understand the idea of the half-maker, and see what you’re saying. But I believe you said that the material world is essentially useless… a trap of sorts. Forgive me if I am putting words in your mouth. This is one reason why I am not Gnostic (although, as I said, I find it interesting and illuminating in particular ways). Catholic and Orthodox Christianity are *incarnational *, in that the world and the here and now are not forfeited in exchange for another spiritual realm (at least not ideally, imo). Christ entered as the Divine into humanity to help humanity know the Divine… not later, but right here on earth (as much as is possible in our short lives). The saints carry on the work of Christ on Earth, as we are all called upon to do as Christians. As I said, flawed or not, I have no desire to escape physical reality. I’ll take it all; the good, bad, and ugly (EDIT: Unless you ask me on a really bad day!).

And anyway, no offence meant here, but if I ever wanted to find a way to escape or transcend material existence, I’d hedge my bets with the Theravada Buddhists, personally, as I believe their methods and practices are much more developed and refined (even if Gnosticism has better mythology and poetry).

 

[joe371]

Then who IS the real G-d according to the Gnostics? Judaism believes that G-d created the world INTENTIONALLY imperfect because of His partnership with mankind, whose goal is to make it a better world for everyone by repairing it.

If the sin of man does not factor in then why didn’t God just do it right the first time instead of creating the world INTENTIONALLY imperfect with the goal of making it a better world for everyone by repairing it?

 

[curtish1947]

Nowhere did I find the kind of humility in Gnostic Christianity that exists in Catholic and Orthodox Christianity. It might be a “theme”, even a salient one, but in orthodox Christianity, it is all important and must be lived. Even contemporary Orthodox Saint Silouan of Mt. Athos, who was apparently very spiritually adept, had to come to face to face with his own utter poverty and hidden pride in order to “advance”, spiritually. From my understanding, Gnosticism is more of a do-it-yourself project, wherein grace is not something that is sought after. Am I correct? Traditional Christianity, while requiring our efforts, is not… we rely on the mercy and grace of God. Also, as Christianity is the religion of love, it is a do-it-together for all of creation kind of project. Gnosticism is rather elitist; only the really clever and/or intuitive people “get it”. Not much room for humility in that view!

I understand the idea of the half-maker, and see what you’re saying. But I believe you said that the material world is essentially useless… a trap of sorts. Forgive me if I am putting words in your mouth. This is one reason why I am not Gnostic (although, as I said, I find it interesting and illuminating in particular ways). Catholic and Orthodox Christianity are *incarnational *, in that the world and the here and now are not forfeited in exchange for another spiritual realm (at least not ideally, imo). Christ entered as the Divine into humanity to help humanity know the Divine… not later, but right here on earth (as much as is possible in our short lives). The saints carry on the work of Christ on Earth, as we are all called upon to do as Christians. As I said, flawed or not, I have no desire to escape physical reality. I’ll take it all; the good, bad, and ugly (EDIT: Unless you ask me on a really bad day!).

And anyway, no offence meant here, but if I ever wanted to find a way to escape or transcend material existence, I’d hedge my bets with the Theravada Buddhists, personally, as I believe their methods and practices are much more developed and refined (even if Gnosticism has better mythology and poetry).

Hi,
I tried to say this earlier, but didn’t. I don’t meditate and never have, but I have had encounters with God, outside of me. Never once has Jesus, Mary, The Holy Spirit, or God The Father ever been talking to me from the inside of me.
Also, I have no method for having God talk to me. None. He just has. I also will not meditate as it is too close to consulting with spirits of the dead, which is very much forbidden, in that book called the Bible.
One day when I was asked a question, for whom you call the imperfect god, but who is to me God, the first item I struggled with, was the need for INFINITE HUMILITY. I wasn’t sure if I was up to that. Earlier in my life, I have always strived for humility, but only after I found out that God is Real. But, slowly I became very humble, but liked it, and choose no other ways, as that is so pleasant.
Humility is ever present. As far as your ideas that the material world has no value spiritually, there is a phrase in Christianity from our Book that one of us has proven is real and most of us just believe it is real. In there we are told no to get to attached to anything in the material world, and we are told why. It is passing away. What God gives us next is totally better than anything we could imagine.
I have often come across studied individuals, who miss the point of Christianity and the point of the Words in the Bible. I hope that is not you. I hope that all of your information is not from authors and students. I hope some of it is from you personally. Things you have proven to be true. Things that are provably true. And yes, I can prove everything I say, usually. I can, and you can ask me some of the things I can prove. I can also give you the proofs to try.
Please, I am not trying to sound horrible, and hope I do not. I just wanted to show you how I have come to believe differently, from things outside of myself, not interiourly.

…Curt/K.