Ask a Gnostic

[gnosisofthomas]

Still wondering about this one. Several of your posts seem to indicate the opposite.

Sorry, I must have missed this one earlier. Our ordinations are considered valid because our line of apostolic succession originated with validly ordained bishops. According to the Catholic Church, they have the ability to ordain and consecrate someone else, but it is considered illicit if it is not done with the required authorization. I can’t remember who consecrated our founding bishop, off the top of my head, but I do know we have a list tracing our apostolic succession somewhere… I just have to find it.

Ultimately though, since we’re a different church, we don’t require the legal recognition of Rome one way or another. I just mentioned it because I was talking about how our church was founded, and wanted to make it clear that it wasn’t as if some random guy just decided to declare himself a bishop one day, haha!

 

[gnosisofthomas]

This is the “Ask a Gnostic” thread on **Catholic Answers **Forums. Challenging the positions of gnosticism in light of Catholic teaching is very valid.

I agree Corki, as this is a Catholic forum, I expect that – as long as it’s respectful per the forum rules. But the important thing to keep in mind is that Gnosticism needs to be understood on its own, and not in the light of another religion or denomination. It’s also important to remember that heresy is in the eye of the beholder. One man’s heresy is another man’s religion, and my religion is just as important to me as yours is to you.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Gnostic teachings have been around since the begining, however, I’m such a avid follower of St Irenaeus that I’ll have to follow this a bit.

Interesting your take on Catholicism and Gnostic, have you read St Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1-5?

I’ve read some of Irenaeus’ writings… I don’t particularly agree with him, but he was certainly a good source for Gnostic scripture before the Nag Hammadi Library was discovered!

 

[Corki]

Sorry, I must have missed this one earlier. Our ordinations are considered valid because our line of apostolic succession originated with validly ordained bishops. According to the Catholic Church, they have the ability to ordain and consecrate someone else, but it is considered illicit if it is not done with the required authorization. I can’t remember who consecrated our founding bishop, off the top of my head, but I do know we have a list tracing our apostolic succession somewhere… I just have to find it.

Well, apostolic sucession is just one piece of valid Sacraments. For Ordination, there must also be valid form and intent. I am confused as to how your organization maintained valid form if there is such a different understanding of the Trinity and eof the nature of God.

My understanding is that a line of apostolic succession is considered broken when a church ordains women, which you indicate you do.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Well, apostolic sucession is just one piece of valid Sacraments. For Ordination, there must also be valid form and intent. I am confused as to how your organization maintained valid form if there is such a different understanding of the Trinity and eof the nature of God.

We believe in the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In fact, Gnostic scripture has one of the most explicit references to the Holy Trinity in all of early Christian scripture. Our form of ordination is the same as the Catholic form – or at least as it was before Vatican II because we still have Major and Minor Orders. I can’t say how similar it is to the modern Catholic form of ordination, since I’m not familiar with it.

My understanding is that a line of apostolic succession is considered broken when a church ordains women, which you indicate you do.

I’m not sure what the Catholic rule on that is exactly, but we disagree with denying Holy Orders to women. And again, whether the RCC recognizes our Holy Orders or not is irrelevant… We can trace our apostolic succession directly back to the apostles, whether other denominations consider it valid or not. It’s fine for the RCC to place rules and regulations within their own church, but they don’t have jurisdiction over other denominations to extend those rules to them.

On a side note, my bishop sincerely believes that one day Gnostics will finally be reconciled with Rome… I’m not quite as optimistic about that, largely because of issues like this.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Gnosticism did not become fused with Christianity. Gnosticism is an old heresy. Heresies don’t become fused with the teachings of the Catholic Church, and they never have been.

In Kenneth Whitehead’s Short Guide to Ancient Heresies, he describes Gnosticism:

GNOSTICISM

"The heretical theory that salvation comes through some special knowledge, usually knowledge claimed by a special elite group.

Gnostic theories existed before Christianity, and the Gnostics adapted the Gospels to their own views and for their own purposes, even composing pseudogospels, embodying their particular ideas and doctrines. Gnosticism held matter to be evil and hostile to the human spirit; it also essentially denied the truths of Christian revelation.

Jacob Burckhart descibed the Gnostics as “speculative enthusiasts” who embraced Christianity only as a platform for Platonic and oriental ideas. Gnosticism as an organized sect or body has been long extinct, but Gnostic ideas persist and surface in some form in nearly every major heretical version of the Christian faith."

It depends on which version of history you believe. I know Catholics believe that their church has always existed since 33 AD as the only true form of Christianity from which all heretics and schismatics broke away. However, I don’t agree with that view… There’s far too much written material available from early Christians that suggests to me Christianity was much more diverse in the early centuries. As the apostles went out and spread the gospel, they established churches in different locations. Those churches were largely autonomous, and developed in different directions. In the first few centuries, what most people nowadays consider “basic Christian beliefs” were all still being debated. It wasn’t really until the Council of Nicea that an official orthodoxy was established.

Gnosticism wasn’t a reaction to an already established form of Christianity. It grew organically, as one of the many expressions of early Christian beliefs. And yes, it may have been influenced more than Platonic thought than other schools of Christianity, but that’s because it originated in an area with a lot of philosophical diversity.

The problem I have with what Kenneth Whitehead wrote is that Gnosis is not special knolwedge claimed by an elite group. Gnosis is available to everyone – most people simply don’t seek it. But it’s always there, at the core of our being, just waiting for us to wake up. Even the Bible speaks of Gnosis:

“Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” - I Timothy 2:4

Gnosis is that “knowledge of the truth.” It’s not simply a belief that you know the truth, but actually knowing the truth.

I also have a problem with refering to Gnosticism as “heretical” all the time, because it’s an insult to religion. A Gnostics’ faith is just as important to him as yours is to you, and another person’s religion shouldn’t be belittled simply because one disagrees with it.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

There is a major division between the faith that affirmed the goodness of creation and G-d’s willingness to redeem it ( Israelite’s ) versus the faith that deems creation as something that needs escaping from ( Gnostics ).

While trying to avoid turning this into a debate, I would like to say this:

I can’t stress enough (even though I already have), that Gnostics do not hate the world. Is it considered imperfect? Yes! But mainstream Christians also believe it to be imperfect, else why would we need God to redeem it?

I think that we simply express a similar idea in two different ways. We both recognize some sort of defficiency in the world – for you, sin is that deficiency; for us, sin is a result of that deficiency. There is certainly goodness in creation, but it’s nothing compared to living eternally in the presence of God, where there will be no more suffering.

I feel like I keep repeating this scripture, but it’s a good one. In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus says, “Cleave a piece of wood, and I am there; lift up a stone, and you will find me there.” He also says, “The Kingdom is spread out upon the earth, but men don’t see it.” What could possibly be more world-affirming than that?

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Thanks for the responses to my questions, Gnosis of Thomas!!!

Even though I disagree with some of the conclusions you draw, I’m not going to question those conclusions (at least not now).

Great thread. Thanks for informing us about your beliefs and credos. As for you having to “repeat yourself,”------sorry about that. But unfortunately, you must understand, there are a lot of misunderstandings regarding BOTH sides that are really ingrained due to centuries of misinformation and prejudice----so MUCH SO that really you HAVE to repeat the same things over and over again in order for you to overcome the ingrained prejudices and stereotypes.

Please do no take this personally.

Even you should know we also in the RCC have had to overcome and educate regarding centuries of popular misunderstandings and stereotypes.

Please trust me-----we do not hate you here and want you to leave. We just want you to inform us about your beliefs and let us inform you regarding OUR beliefs. As long as there is no preaching on either side, we are totally happy to have you here. You are welcome here----believe me.

Anyway, like I said, I have a hundred more questions, but I’ll confine myself (again) to three:

1. How do you reconcile the fact that Jesus (to paraphrase Him) said He “taught openly” in the synanogues and public places and “hid nothing”, yet Gnosticism (particularly The Gospel of Thomas) emphasizes Jesus’s HIDDEN knowledge and teachings?
2. One of the BIG questions---------do you believe Jesus was married? And also, married to Mary Magdalene? And what is you and your churches’s opinions on Dan Brown and The DaVinci Code?
3. Do you believe in Ultimate Truths? And do you believe your Church HAS the Ultimate Truth, as OUR Church does?

Awaiting your responses, as usual.

Again, be in God!!!

 

[Corki]

We believe in the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In fact, Gnostic scripture has one of the most explicit references to the Holy Trinity in all of early Christian scripture. Our form of ordination is the same as the Catholic form – or at least as it was before Vatican II because we still have Major and Minor Orders. I can’t say how similar it is to the modern Catholic form of ordination, since I’m not familiar with it.

I’m not sure what the Catholic rule on that is exactly, but we disagree with denying Holy Orders to women. **And again, whether the RCC recognizes our Holy Orders or not is irrelevant… **We can trace our apostolic succession directly back to the apostles, whether other denominations consider it valid or not. It’s fine for the RCC to place rules and regulations within their own church, but they don’t have jurisdiction over other denominations to extend those rules to them.

On a side note, my bishop sincerely believes that one day Gnostics will finally be reconciled with Rome… I’m not quite as optimistic about that, largely because of issues like this.

Actually it’s very relevant since you said this very early in this thread.

And our church is part of the greater catholic (universal) ecclesia, having apostolic succession and the sacraments – it’s just considered ‘valid but’ illicit by the Roman Catholic Church.

Without valid ordination, there are no valid Sacraments as you stated. And it makes a difference in terms of your organization’s relationship with the Church. It determines if the relationship is with a church, a denomination or a cult.

 

[YeshuaOrHaOlam]

I feel like I keep repeating this scripture, but it’s a good one. In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus says, “Cleave a piece of wood, and I am there; lift up a stone, and you will find me there.” He also says, “The Kingdom is spread out upon the earth, but men don’t see it.” What could possibly be more world-affirming than that?

Shalom friend;

That’s probably the best line from any of the Gnostic Gospels, so don’t mind repeating it.

Don’t get me wrong, some Gnostic traditions have some very Jewish, temple themes, and are of interest to study. I just can’t put too much stock in them as reliable to what Yeshua actually taught.

There could be an argument made that some aspects of Gnosticism could be compatible with faith in Messiah Yeshua (as He is presented in the Brit Chadashah), but I think, at the end of the day the differences are too great.

But, as I said before, let us not derail the thread. Back to the topic for all those interested.



Shalom Aleichem

 

[Denise1957]

It depends on which version of history you believe. I know Catholics believe that their church has always existed since 33 AD as the only true form of Christianity from which all heretics and schismatics broke away. However, I don’t agree with that view… There’s far too much written material available from early Christians that suggests to me Christianity was much more diverse in the early centuries. As the apostles went out and spread the gospel, they established churches in different locations. Those churches were largely autonomous, and developed in different directions. In the first few centuries, what most people nowadays consider “basic Christian beliefs” were all still being debated. It wasn’t really until the Council of Nicea that an official orthodoxy was established.

Gnosticism wasn’t a reaction to an already established form of Christianity. It grew organically, as one of the many expressions of early Christian beliefs. And yes, it may have been influenced more than Platonic thought than other schools of Christianity, but that’s because it originated in an area with a lot of philosophical diversity.

The problem I have with what Kenneth Whitehead wrote is that Gnosis is not special knolwedge claimed by an elite group. Gnosis is available to everyone – most people simply don’t seek it. But it’s always there, at the core of our being, just waiting for us to wake up. Even the Bible speaks of Gnosis:

“Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” - I Timothy 2:4

Gnosis is that “knowledge of the truth.” It’s not simply a belief that you know the truth, but actually knowing the truth.

I also have a problem with refering to Gnosticism as “heretical” all the time, because it’s an insult to religion. A Gnostics’ faith is just as important to him as yours is to you, and another person’s religion shouldn’t be belittled simply because one disagrees with it.

You mention above that you have a problem with Kenneth Whitehead’s statement about Gnostism’s knowledge claimed by a special elite group, but he was speaking in past tense about what the Gnostics had orginally believed. Self-styled Gnostics these days have different takes on the issue, I suppose.

I assume that you don’t have a problem with the other part of what Whitehead said regarding…“salvation coming through special knowledge.” In this, perhaps your group believes as the old Gnostics did.

I understand that you have a problem with the term ‘heretical.’ But it’s not a term that I invented, and it is a term with which the Church has used to describe those Catholics who went against Church teaching, and invented or founded their own views (and there were many different heresies - Gnosticism being just one of them). The term heretical isn’t meant to belittle, but to describe what I mentioned above. We are all given free will by God, and I understand not all are going to believe in Catholicism, but I think it’s okay to challenge Gnosticism’s claims on a Catholic forum, and I will try to do so in a respectful manner.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

In an attempt to put this thread back on topic. and to have (regrettably) the nagging curiosity of a small child, I’d like to switch things back to Q&A instead of making accusations against the Gnostics. So, I’ve reposted my questions below for the OP’s convenience.

Sorry I took so long to respond to you Shiranui! I wanted to give all your questions some though, and then got distracted by all the other questions I was getting, haha. I’ll answer a few of these now, because this is going to be a long post!

Would you say that there is room in Gnosticism for the Trinity, Jesus’ virgin birth, Jesus’ death and Resurrection opening up for us the gates of Paradise, etc?

Gnostics definitely believe in the Trinity. In fact, Gnostic scripture has one of the most explicit references to the Trinity in all of early Christian writings. I have the quote as my signature line here, but due to space I couldn’t use the full quote – so here it is: “Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in the types and images. It will not receive it in any other fashion. There is a rebirth and an image of rebirth. It is fitting for those who do not only receive the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, but have obtained them for themselves. If anyone does not obtain them for himself, the name also will be taken from him. But one receives them in the chrism of the fullness of the power of the Cross, which the apostles call the right and the left. For this one is no longer a Christian but a Christ.” (Gospel of St. Philip)

This scripture starts off speaking of the sacraments. The “image of rebirth” is the outer symbols of baptism and chrism, whereas the “rebirth” is actually what happens through those sacraments. I tend to think the first line also refers to the incarnation of Christ, because God had to come down in a manner that the world would be able to accept – in human form. But the main part of this quote that I wanted to emphasize in response to your first question is the bolded line, which obviously refers to the Trinity. If we reject the Trinity, then we lose the name of “Christian.” But when we’re anointed by the fullness of the power of God, we’re no longer a Christian, but a Christ. Calling oneself a Christ might come as a shock to some people, and I think perhaps that line was meant to shock – but it also makes me think of what St. Paul wrote about “the Christ in you, the hope of glory.”

The virgin birth is an interesting concept, and there seem to be differing ideas about it in Gnostic scriptures, depending on the sect. One interesting verse is, “Some said: Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit. They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive of a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled, who is anathema to the Hebrews, the apostles and ignorant men. This is the Virgin whom no power defiled.” (Gospel of St. Philip)

Part of this brings us back to the concept of the Trinity, because the Gnostics tended to refer to the Holy Spirit as feminine. This was in part due to the grammatical gender in the language it was written in, and Gnostics played with that imagery a lot. This also happens with Sophia (Wisdom) in both canonical and non-canonical scriptures. What this passage says about the birth of Jesus isn’t quite clear – I don’t think it rejects the virgin birth, but it does seem to question how the virgin birth happened.

Jesus’ death and resurrection are recognized, but the significance of them is a little bit different for Gnostics than it is for orthodox Christians. The crucifixion isn’t seen as an act of redemption by Gnostics; rather, the true sacrifice of Christ is God descending into the limitations of human form. But the crucifixion was necessary because it allowed Christ to be free of the body to continue with His mission – destroying death, etc. Some Gnostic scriptures indicate that Christ continued teaching after Hs resurrection for 7 to 12 years (although in the liturgical cycle, we do celebrate the Feast of the Ascension 40 days after Easter, as is traditional). His resurrection also signifies our own resurrection, although our concept of what that resurrection will be is quite a bit different from both Catholic and Protestant views.

Would you say the demiurge is the God who commands the Israelites to do seemingly evil things, such as commit genocide, whereas the true God is the one to be found, for example, in the Book of Psalms and Proverbs?

Personally, that’s exactly what I think, although I can’t speak for all Gnostics. A controlling and destructive god seems to be what the demiurge represents in Gnostic scripture. But the true God does appear in many of the OT books, particularly the Wisdom Literature. I’ve heard many justifications for why “God” would call for such evil actions, particularly from my uncle who is a Seventh-Day Adventist minister – but none of those justifications sit well with me. I can’t bring myself to worship a god who would do such things, especially when they conflict so much with the loving Father that Jesus taught about. (I love the Book of Psalms, by the way. I pray them a lot!)

I’ll end this here for now because this post is getting ridiculously long, haha! Thanks for the questions.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Okay, I’ll answer one more!

To what extent do you feel Gnosticism can be reconciled Orthodox Christianity, or give a different perspective that is palatable to Orthodox Christianity? What do you think we could learn from you to better understand our own faith?

I honestly don’t know how to answer this question. My bishop sincerely believes that one day Gnostics will be reconciled with the Universal Church. While I think that would be wonderful, I think that 2000 years of history have separated us so much that I’m not sure it will ever be possible. But even if we aren’t reconciled, I do hope that we can have better dialogue with each other, and perhaps dispell some of the misconceptions, especially that Gnostics are “world-hating dualist heretics.” When it gets right down to it, I like to focus on our similarities, rather than differences. As long as we have faith in Christ, and follow His commandments to love God and our neighbors, the little theological differences don’t matter as much to me.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Thanks for the responses to my questions, Gnosis of Thomas!!!

Even though I disagree with some of the conclusions you draw, I’m not going to question those conclusions (at least not now).

Great thread. Thanks for informing us about your beliefs and credos. As for you having to “repeat yourself,”------sorry about that. But unfortunately, you must understand, there are a lot of misunderstandings regarding BOTH sides that are really ingrained due to centuries of misinformation and prejudice----so MUCH SO that really you HAVE to repeat the same things over and over again in order for you to overcome the ingrained prejudices and stereotypes.

Please do no take this personally.

Even you should know we also in the RCC have had to overcome and educate regarding centuries of popular misunderstandings and stereotypes.

Please trust me-----we do not hate you here and want you to leave. We just want you to inform us about your beliefs and let us inform you regarding OUR beliefs. As long as there is no preaching on either side, we are totally happy to have you here. You are welcome here----believe me.

Anyway, like I said, I have a hundred more questions, but I’ll confine myself (again) to three:

1. How do you reconcile the fact that Jesus (to paraphrase Him) said He “taught openly” in the synanogues and public places and “hid nothing”, yet Gnosticism (particularly The Gospel of Thomas) emphasizes Jesus’s HIDDEN knowledge and teachings?
2. One of the BIG questions---------do you believe Jesus was married? And also, married to Mary Magdalene? And what is you and your churches’s opinions on Dan Brown and The DaVinci Code?
3. Do you believe in Ultimate Truths? And do you believe your Church HAS the Ultimate Truth, as OUR Church does?

Awaiting your responses, as usual.

Again, be in God!!!

It appears that you may have missed my post, so I’m re-posting.

Thanks.

Again, be in God!!!

 

[gnosisofthomas]

I haven’t forgotten about you.

But unfortunately, you must understand, there are a lot of misunderstandings regarding BOTH sides that are really ingrained due to centuries of misinformation and prejudice----so MUCH SO that really you HAVE to repeat the same things over and over again in order for you to overcome the ingrained prejudices and stereotypes.

Exactly! I definitely understand the misinformation out there, and I know it’s going to take a long time to overcome. I was just having a conversation with a friend of mine about that recently, actually.

Even you should know we also in the RCC have had to overcome and educate regarding centuries of popular misunderstandings and stereotypes.

I definitely understand that too. I actually converted to Catholicism in high school, after having been raised in the Church of the Nazarene. Confronting stereotypes was a reality in my family, and even with some of my friends. My dad, despite the fact that his mom was a devout Catholic, hated Catholicism… So we tended to get into arguments quite a bit. It’s funny though because he never said to his mom the things he said to me!

1. How do you reconcile the fact that Jesus (to paraphrase Him) said He “taught openly” in the synanogues and public places and “hid nothing”, yet Gnosticism (particularly The Gospel of Thomas) emphasizes Jesus’s HIDDEN knowledge and teachings?

I can’t think which verse you’re referring to… Do you know the verse(s)?

In Matthew 13, the disciples ask Jesus why he speaks to the masses in parables, and he says to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given . . . Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled . . . But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear.”

The Gospel of Thomas repeats “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” a lot! It’s important to remember that the GoT wasn’t specifically a Gnostic text, although it was used by some Gnostics. In fact most of the Gospel is identical to the canonical Gospels, it’s really only a small portion of it that is unique. The “hidden teachings” idea is a concept from both canonical and non-canonical writings – Jesus taught certain spiritual truths to those who were able to understand them, but he revealed them only when one was ready. With others, he had to teach them in a way that they could understand. Even many of the Gnostic scriptures are hard to decode because they’re written in a way that the average person won’t understand. As you read more of the Gnostic scriptures though, and start to become familiar with the concepts, it becomes easier to put the pieces together and everything starts to make more sense.

1. One of the BIG questions---------do you believe Jesus was married? And also, married to Mary Magdalene? And what is you and your churches’s opinions on Dan Brown and The DaVinci Code?

Haha! Well, the church doesn’t really have a position on The DaVinci Code. It’s entertaining fiction, but nothing more. One plus is that it revived an interest in Gnosticism, but the negative side is that it’s given people very wrong ideas of what Gnosticism is. As for Jesus and Mary Magdalene being married – I have no idea, because I wasn’t alive back then. Personally, I doubt that they were married, but who knows? It doesn’t detract from Jesus’ teachings one way or another, for me. Scripture does indicate that they had a special relationship. Our Gospel reading yesterday at Mass, for the Feast of the Descent of Sophia was from the Gospel of Philip, and it said, “The Sophia whom they call barren is the mother of the angels. And the consort of Christ is Mary Magdalen. The Lord loved her more than all the disciples, and kissed her on her mouth often . . . There were three who walked with the Lord at all times, Mary his mother and her sister and Magdalene, whom they called his consort. For Mary was his mother and his sister and his consort.”

Aside from the pronoun issue in the last sentence, which was probably an error by the scribe – this passage refers to Mary as His consort. But what “consort” means could vary… I could mean they were married, but not necessarily. It could also simply indicate their close relationship, perhaps Mary’s deeper understanding of the Mysteries. It could also be a reference to the Mystery of the Bridal Chamber, which was the highest Gnostic sacrament (and has nothing to do with actual marriage). Since the passage starts with mentioning Sophia, the Aeon Who with Christ forms a syzygy, I tend to think that’s what it’s referring to by calling Mary His consort.

1. Do you believe in Ultimate Truths? And do you believe your Church HAS the Ultimate Truth, as OUR Church does?

Yes, I believe in Ultimate Truth. But we arrive at that Truth in different ways. I don’t believe that Ultimate Truth is contained in any earthly church, including my own – the only way we can know that Truth is through Gnosis. And Gnosis certainly isn’t limited to any one particular denomination. Many Catholic saints and mystics have had experiences that one might call Gnosis. I think the difference is that sometimes one’s church doesn’t give one a context in which to handle such an experience, and occasionally it can cause a person to feel they’re going mad! I think there’s definitely Truth in the RCC, but I think that when you try to pin down the Truth and define it, you miss what the Truth really is – it’s ineffable, just as God is ineffable.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

You mention above that you have a problem with Kenneth Whitehead’s statement about Gnostism’s knowledge claimed by a special elite group, but he was speaking in past tense about what the Gnostics had orginally believed. Self-styled Gnostics these days have different takes on the issue, I suppose.

I don’t think he fully understands what ancient Gnostics actually believed. It sounds very biased, based on the polemics of ancient heresiologists. And I understand those heresiologists are taken seriously in the Catholic Church, so I don’t want to insult your religion by any means – but the fact is, the heresiologists had an agenda, and some of what they wrote simply wasn’t true.

Think of what some Protestants write about the Catholic Church – and I’ve read some horrible things! They have an agenda, and because of the fact that they already have a bias against Catholics when they start writing, most of their propaganda is outright wrong, and insulting. And honestly, since they aren’t Catholic, their actual knowledge of Catholicism is limited.

I assume that you don’t have a problem with the other part of what Whitehead said regarding…“salvation coming through special knowledge.” In this, perhaps your group believes as the old Gnostics did. .

Well I included that in my response, but… Gnosis is certainly special. Heck, Salvation is special! But it’s not special in the sense that it’s only reserved for an elite few. Salvific Gnosis is available to everyone. It can’t be taught, it can only be experienced – which makes it a very personal and intimate experience between you and God.

I guess the key here is to understand exactly what he meant by the word “special”, because it can be taken in different ways.

I understand that you have a problem with the term ‘heretical.’ But it’s not a term that I invented, and it is a term with which the Church has used to describe those Catholics who went against Church teaching, and invented or founded their own views (and there were many different heresies - Gnosticism being just one of them). The term heretical isn’t meant to belittle, but to describe what I mentioned above. We are all given free will by God, and I understand not all are going to believe in Catholicism, but I think it’s okay to challenge Gnosticism’s claims on a Catholic forum, and I will try to do so in a respectful manner.

I understand that Denise, but it *does *belittle another person’s religion. Just because it’s been traditionally used, doesn’t make it okay. It’s okay to challenge Gnosticism, but terms like “the Gnostic Heresy” aren’t respectful at all.

Again, think of when some Protestants refer to the Catholic Church as the “Whore of Babylon”, and the Pope as the “anti-Christ”. They genuinely believe these things because that’s what they’re taught, and to them, Catholics are the heretics. But it’s still insulting to refer to another person’s religion in such a way.

 

[Denise1957]

I don’t think he fully understands what ancient Gnostics actually believed. It sounds very biased, based on the polemics of ancient
I understand that Denise, but it *does *belittle another person’s religion. Just because it’s been traditionally used, doesn’t make it okay. It’s okay to challenge Gnosticism, but terms like “the Gnostic Heresy” aren’t respectful at all.

Again, think of when some Protestants refer to the Catholic Church as the “Whore of Babylon”, and the Pope as the “anti-Christ”. They genuinely believe these things because that’s what they’re taught, and to them, Catholics are the heretics. But it’s still insulting to refer to another person’s religion in such a way.

Your quote regarding things that some Protestants call the Catholic Church isn’t the same thing at all as the Catholic Church believing that Gnostism was/is a heresy. You may feel that Gnostics were given a bad rap by the Church, so perhaps you can show how all of the dogmas of the Catholic Church are also believed in the same way by Gnostics then and now.

Most of what you’ve written regarding your beliefs as a Gnostic are opposed to Catholic teaching. So to infer there was some sort of agenda against Gnostics just isn’t sound reasoning. It’s obvious that Catholic teaching and Gnostic teaching are poles apart.

 

[Shiranui117]

Your quote regarding things that some Protestants call the Catholic Church isn’t the same thing at all as the Catholic Church believing that Gnostism was/is a heresy. You may feel that Gnostics were given a bad rap by the Church, so perhaps you can show how all of the dogmas of the Catholic Church are also believed in the same way by Gnostics then and now.

Most of what you’ve written regarding your beliefs as a Gnostic are opposed to Catholic teaching. So to infer there was some sort of agenda against Gnostics just isn’t sound reasoning. It’s obvious that Catholic teaching and Gnostic teaching are poles apart.

I think you completely missed gnosisofthomas’s point. His point was, if I read his post correctly, that slamming someone in the face with the fact that you think they’re heretics isn’t very nice, and we don’t like it when others do it to us. It is possible to have a conversation with a person who has a very different set of beliefs than your own and never once say that you think they’re wrong. Good religious conversations avoid prejudices, stereotypes and ESPECIALLY avoid an “us vs. them” mentality.

 

[Shiranui117]

Sorry I took so long to respond to you Shiranui! I wanted to give all your questions some though, and then got distracted by all the other questions I was getting, haha. I’ll answer a few of these now, because this is going to be a long post!

Lol, no problem I appreciate your time.

Gnostics definitely believe in the Trinity. In fact, Gnostic scripture has one of the most explicit references to the Trinity in all of early Christian writings. I have the quote as my signature line here, but due to space I couldn’t use the full quote – so here it is: “Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in the types and images. It will not receive it in any other fashion. There is a rebirth and an image of rebirth. It is fitting for those who do not only receive the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, but have obtained them for themselves. If anyone does not obtain them for himself, the name also will be taken from him. But one receives them in the chrism of the fullness of the power of the Cross, which the apostles call the right and the left. For this one is no longer a Christian but a Christ.” (Gospel of St. Philip)

So this ties into Gnosticism’s idea that we are all divine sparks of God, and “parts” of God, yes? That we really are God, as you said, “if only we would wake up and realize it?”

If we reject the Trinity, then we lose the name of “Christian.” But when we’re anointed by the fullness of the power of God, we’re no longer a Christian, but a Christ. Calling oneself a Christ might come as a shock to some people, and I think perhaps that line was meant to shock – but it also makes me think of what St. Paul wrote about “the Christ in you, the hope of glory.”

Right. Christ means “anointed one,” we’re all of Christ, we’re anointed, so ergo…

The virgin birth is an interesting concept, and there seem to be differing ideas about it in Gnostic scriptures, depending on the sect. One interesting verse is, “Some said: Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit. They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive of a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled, who is anathema to the Hebrews, the apostles and ignorant men. This is the Virgin whom no power defiled.” (Gospel of St. Philip)

Part of this brings us back to the concept of the Trinity, because the Gnostics tended to refer to the Holy Spirit as feminine. This was in part due to the grammatical gender in the language it was written in, and Gnostics played with that imagery a lot. This also happens with Sophia (Wisdom) in both canonical and non-canonical scriptures. What this passage says about the birth of Jesus isn’t quite clear – I don’t think it rejects the virgin birth, but it does seem to question how the virgin birth happened.

So this interpretation by the Gnostics is REALLY a virgin birth, it seems. But when Jesus was incarnate of Mary… Did He just show up? You know what, forget this question, the virgin birth is a mystery beyond human comprehension anyway! But it is interesting, since Wisdom is personified as feminine in the Book of Proverbs. I think that line from the Gospel of Philip seeks to maintain the virginity of Mary even more; we often speak of the Holy Spirit as “coming upon” Mary, and that’s when she conceived Jesus, whereas the Gospel of Philip is basically saying “Look, the Holy Spirit didn’t have intercourse with Mary; after all, spirit is a feminine word!”

. . .The crucifixion isn’t seen as an act of redemption by Gnostics; rather, the true sacrifice of Christ is God descending into the limitations of human form. But the crucifixion was necessary because it allowed Christ to be free of the body to continue with His mission – destroying death, etc . . . His resurrection also signifies our own resurrection, although our concept of what that resurrection will be is quite a bit different from both Catholic and Protestant views.

Do you mind sharing what that view of our resurrection is?

And actually, I can see what the Gnostics are saying about Christ having to die in order to defeat death, but obviously for a different reason. I also understand Christ’s Incarnation as being a form of “sacrifice”–in that He emptied Himself, as Scripture says.

Perhaps another question for discussion is, both Gnostics and Orthodox Christians can be said to arrive at the same conclusions in several areas, but by way of different reasonings. Do these different reasonings matter in the grand scheme of things?

Personally, that’s exactly what I think, although I can’t speak for all Gnostics. A controlling and destructive god seems to be what the demiurge represents in Gnostic scripture. But the true God does appear in many of the OT books, particularly the Wisdom Literature. . . (I love the Book of Psalms, by the way. I pray them a lot!)

Glad to have another Psalms fan

I understand the difficulty in believing that God is responsible for commanding the genocides in the OT. Is the Demiurge really viewed as a second god, or a powerful, misguided spirit? If simply a powerful, misguided spirit, then perhaps that would explain some parts of the OT. Do you feel that more violent parts of the Mosaic Law could have been caused by the Demiurge interfering while God was giving Moses the Law, or added in those parts later?

I’ll end this here for now because this post is getting ridiculously long, haha! Thanks for the questions.

Lol, and thanks for answering them

 

[Denise1957]

I think you completely missed gnosisofthomas’s point. His point was, if I read his post correctly, that slamming someone in the face with the fact that you think they’re heretics isn’t very nice, and we don’t like it when others do it to us. It is possible to have a conversation with a person who has a very different set of beliefs than your own and never once say that you think they’re wrong. Good religious conversations avoid prejudices, stereotypes and ESPECIALLY avoid an “us vs. them” mentality.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, but I did understand what gnosisofthomas was saying.