Ask a Gnostic

[gnosisofthomas]

Thanks for the explanation gnosisofthomas, very interesting stuff.

No problem, I’m glad you found it interesting. Sorry, I haven’t been on here in a while and so I just saw your message.

 

[Ian1968]

Since "Ask a " threads seem to be popular in this forum, and I’ve found them quite interesting, I thought I would start one here. Feel free to ask any questions you may have about Gnostic Christianity, and I’ll try my best to answer them.

I’m currently on the cusp of being ordained to the Subdiaconate in a Gnostic church, after spending the last few years in Minor Orders. While I can’t promise to know everything, I feel confident enough in my faith to be able to answer questions about it.

May the peace of the Lord be with you!

When I was young I used to dabble in Gnosticism. But the history of the ante-nicene fathers and the writings of St. Irenaeus convinced me that this was all a false form of Christianity. Gnosticism pre-dated Christ, and when the Gnositcs heard the preaching of St. Paul, about the unknown god, they identified with it and mixed their teachings with that of Christ. They were looking for a savior or teacher who would give them the knowledge necessary to return to the Pleroma. They thought they found it in Jesus. But Paul speaks against such people who teach a so called knowledge. And John in his letters writes against the docetics when he condemns those who preach Jesus not coming in the flesh. And I believe that in many ways the Gospel of John is partly written to denounce the Gnostics by showing that salvation comes from faith in Jesus and his death on the cross, and not in the Gnostic notion of believing in yourself and the light that dwells inside you and following Jesus teachings, while ignoring Jesus’ death and resurrection.

 

[Ian1968]

There were many Gnostic groups, Many were anti-women. They believed that only males, who cannot pro-create, were worthy of eternal life. They believed that the present world was evil and that they demiurge had created it, so they believed that having babies was evil.They in fact believed that matter itself was evil.

The Carpocratian Gnostics were some of the most bizarre. Because they would engage in extra-marital relations, because they wanted to break the commandment not to do so, because they believed that the demiurge was the God of the Old Testament.

There are so many historical and scientific mistakes that the Gnostics made in their theology. There are not 7 planets that revolve the around the sun. And the Archons do not rule the physical universe.

Jesus was a Jew and so were the Apostles. They didn’t believe in this stuff. This theology comes from paganism. Much of Gnosticism is similar to the beliefs of Socrates, not Jesus.

 

[Ian1968]

Gnostics believed that at the beginning there was the fullness (Pleroma), the perfection of the spirit world. But that an emanation from God, known as an aeon, named Sophia, rebelled against the Monad (God), and shined light into darkness, and so the physical universe came into being. Then the first creation of this was the Yaldabaoth, who is sometimes called the Hebdomad. And that he created the earth, thinking he was god.

But the idea is that some of that original light is trapped inside mankind and that is the human soul. So when we die we wish to return to the Pleroma, but to get back there we need the passwords to get past the sun, moon, and planets and the rulers that dwell there. These rulers are known as Archons. And there is a belief that there are 10 heavens, which are the sun, moon, planets, and beyond, and that the first 7 heavens are ruled by Archons, and that is what makes up the physical universe. But the 8th, 9th and 10th heavens are the realm of the Pleroma. And they believed that Jesus gave them the passwords necessary to get back to the Pleroma: I am going back to where I came from…

 

[Ian1968]

I remember learning about learning about Gnosticism. There were so so many different forms.

They created a whole plethora of literature. Both concerning the New and Old Testaments. They have their own creation story. Every thing with a Gnostic twist.

But none of this literature had anything to do with ancient Judaism or the early Christianity of the Apostles. All of it was created later than the New Testament. Read St. Irenaeus’ book Against Heresies. It was written in the second half of the 2nd century against the Gnostics.

Irenaeus wrote in about 180 AD and coined the term Apostolic Succession, to show that in the 150 years since the time of Jesus, the successors of the Apostles had kept the faith. So the Gnostics were wrong, according to Irenaeus.

 

[SeanIM]

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.

Love this thread man.

Appreciate all of your insight and willingness to share with us.

Regarding the position of experiencing truth yourself directly and it’s availability, this reminds me of Buddhist thought on seeking inward to find this knowledge and experience.

Which then also reminds me of Luke 17:20-21

Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed,** the kingdom of God is within you**.”

Peace

 

[fred_conty]

IAN,
Thanks for your explaination that was quite good. It sounds similiar to mormanism. Since you responed so well, do you happen to know if the gnostics deny free will with regard to sin? Because it sounds to me from former explainations of others, that a person is not guilty of sin.

Thanks again.

 

[Ian1968]

IAN,
Thanks for your explaination that was quite good. It sounds similiar to mormanism. Since you responed so well, do you happen to know if the gnostics deny free will with regard to sin? Because it sounds to me from former explainations of others, that a person is not guilty of sin.

Thanks again.

I dont’ know if Gnosticism even has a sin concept.

 

[Vouthon]

Dear Gnostic

May I ask, what is your conception - as a Gnostic - of union with God?

Can I also ask: Given the diversity of the Gnostic movement in the 2nd to 4th centuries in the Roman Empire, which “strand” of Gnostic thought do you and modern Gnostics align with (ie Valentinian?), or is there a modern synthesis between these highly variant strands?

Thanks

 

[Vouthon]

I dont’ know if Gnosticism even has a sin concept.

I think that the Gospel of Mary explaiined this rather well:

"…Peter said to him, ‘Since you have explained everything to us, tell us this also: What is the sin of the world?’

The Savior said, 'There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin. That is why the Good came into your midst, to the essence of every nature in order to restore it to its root. Then He continued and said, That is why you become sick and die, for you are deprived of the one who can heal you. He who has a mind to understand, let him understand. Matter gave birth to a passion that has no equal, which proceeded from something contrary to nature. Then there arises a disturbance in its whole body.That is why I said to you, Be of good courage, and if you are discouraged be encouraged in the presence of the different forms of nature. He who has ears to hear, let him hear’…"

- Gospel of Mary [Magdalene], Akhmim

 

[Ian1968]

I think that the Gospel of Mary explaiined this rather well:

From what I understand, in Gnosticism the sin is that the soul exists in the material world.

 

[ffg]

I agree with the first, this is interesting, I’ll look for similar topics, other religions or denominations. Thanks for starting.

 

[ffg]

After reading all of this, I am thankful for the info and the time from the OP, and I am most thankful for the Catholic Church.

G’night

 

[Zekariya]

Do you believe that the Eucharist is the Body (Human Flesh) and Blood of Jesus Christ? I am asking this due to the fact that you celebrate the sacraments but, to the best of my knowledge, Gnostics tend to be very much against the physical bodies of humans.

Here is a pertinent quote that lead to this question:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” - St Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110)

Thanks!

 

[AveChriste11]

Also, how do you feel about the Theosophical Society and the teachings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky? Many of her writings definitely had a Gnostic-slant to them.

You mention that Christianity had grown up in several different areas, while some were more influenced by Platonic thought and others by Jewish thought, etc… I agree with this – so you would not say that there was a specific way of thinking that is known by “orthodoxy” that was set out by the Apostles?

I’ve always found it hard to register that one Apostle would teach one thing, and another would go off and teach something else to a community in another region. Also, if there was anything we needed to know – wouldn’t the Bishops which the Apostles had ordained, have told us? As many of them directly knew them in person, and passed on their knowledge and teachings to those after them. Many of whom willingly gave up their lives for the ability to practice their faith.

I agree that many of our most cherished beliefs in regards to icons, and the Trinity etc. were still being worked out. But I have heard that the belief was already present, they just needed a way to clarify themselves better for those that didn’t understand.

For instance, if I started using the word “homousion” and talking in Greek to St. Peter. He may tell me that he speaks Aramaic and doesn’t understand what I’m saying. If I were then to explain to him in Aramaic why I believe that Jesus Christ is of ONE essence with the Father, he would then say “Yes! That is what we were taught.”

Or at least that’s my understanding of how it would work. I hope you’ll help us understand these things better, at least from an alternative viewpoint such as your own.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

I’m so glad someone else responded to this thread! I never got a chance to respond to some of the things Ian said, and I’ve been meaning clarify some of those points. But first…

Do you believe that the Eucharist is the Body (Human Flesh) and Blood of Jesus Christ? I am asking this due to the fact that you celebrate the sacraments but, to the best of my knowledge, Gnostics tend to be very much against the physical bodies of humans.

Gnostics aren’t really so against the physical body as many people think. I’ve talked about this earlier in the thread, but I’d say our view of the body really isn’t that different from the Catholic view when you get down to it. The body (and the world) is imperfect, but only because it’s so far removed from the Source of Perfection – being imperfect doesn’t necessarily mean it’s evil, it’s just not as perfect as God, Who is the source of our being. Christ Himself had to incarnate into a body in order to teach us, but can you imagine how difficult and painful it must be for God to incarnate into a human body? In the Gospel of Thomas He says, “I marvel at how such wealth [the spirit] has made its home in such poverty [the flesh].”

The scriptures teach us not to hate the body, nor love it, but to seek some sort of balance. The Gospel of Philip says:

Fear not the flesh nor love it. If you fear it, it will gain mastery over you. If you love it, it will swallow and paralyze you.

To answer your question about the Eucharist, we do believe in the Real Presence. To us (and I can only speak for my particular Gnostic church), it’s more of a *pneumatic *presence – a spiritual presence. The accidents of bread and wine do change, they cease to be bread and wine and become the body and blood of Christ. They become His spiritual body and blood through transubstantiation. On a side note, my priest has actually suggested the term “transessentiation” to describe this, because it’s the very essence of the bread and wine that changes.

The Gospel of Philip, which comes from the Valentinian school of Gnosticism, is arguably the best book on Gnostic Sacramental theology available. At one point is bluntly says, “The Eucharist is Jesus.” According to the Philip the bread is true, life-giving food; and the wine is full of grace and the Holy Spirit.

The cup of prayer contains wine and water, since it is appointed as the type of the blood for which thanks is given. And it is full of the Holy Spirit, and it belongs to the wholly perfect man. When we drink this, we shall receive for ourselves the Perfect Man.

I hope that answers your question.

Here is a pertinent quote that lead to this question:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” - St Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110)

Ignatius’ letter refers to Docetism, not necessarily Gnosticism. Some Gnostics may have had views similar to docetism, which is the belief that Jesus’ body was illusory or absent. But others didn’t deny the existence of His body. The Valentinian Gnostics don’t seem to have held to docetism… If we go back to the Gospel of Philip, Jesus was born of an earthly father and mother:

Some said, “Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit.” They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled. She is a great anathema to the Hebrews, the apostles and the apostolic men. This virgin whom no power defiled . . .** The Lord would not have said “My Father who is in Heaven,” unless he had had another father, but he would have said simply “My father”.**

Later it says:

Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way.

Christ had to come into the world as a man, in order for the world to receive Him. The Gospel of Judas is another good example of a Gnostic sect that accepted that Christ incarnated into a body:

For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.

This text also portrays Christ as being able to leave his body at will, but it clearly indicates that He had one… It’s a Sethian Gnostic text, which is an older school of Gnosticism that influenced both the Valentinians and Basiledeans.

I quote from Gnostic sources a lot here because I think it’s important to understand the Gnostics from their own words, and not what heresiologists wrote about them. We’ve found, since the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library, that some of what the heresiologists wrote was pretty accurate (for example, their quotes from Gnostic scripture), and some of it wasn’t so accurate… Largely due to their own religious biases.

 

[Zekariya]

I’m so glad someone else responded to this thread! I never got a chance to respond to some of the things Ian said, and I’ve been meaning clarify some of those points. But first…

Gnostics aren’t really so against the physical body as many people think. I’ve talked about this earlier in the thread, but I’d say our view of the body really isn’t that different from the Catholic view when you get down to it. The body (and the world) is imperfect, but only because it’s so far removed from the Source of Perfection – being imperfect doesn’t necessarily mean it’s evil, it’s just not as perfect as God, Who is the source of our being. Christ Himself had to incarnate into a body in order to teach us, but can you imagine how difficult and painful it must be for God to incarnate into a human body? In the Gospel of Thomas He says, “I marvel at how such wealth [the spirit] has made its home in such poverty [the flesh].”

The scriptures teach us not to hate the body, nor love it, but to seek some sort of balance. The Gospel of Philip says:

To answer your question about the Eucharist, we do believe in the Real Presence. To us (and I can only speak for my particular Gnostic church), it’s more of a *pneumatic *presence – a spiritual presence. The accidents of bread and wine do change, they cease to be bread and wine and become the body and blood of Christ. They become His spiritual body and blood through transubstantiation. On a side note, my priest has actually suggested the term “transessentiation” to describe this, because it’s the very essence of the bread and wine that changes.

The Gospel of Philip, which comes from the Valentinian school of Gnosticism, is arguably the best book on Gnostic Sacramental theology available. At one point is bluntly says, “The Eucharist is Jesus.” According to the Philip the bread is true, life-giving food; and the wine is full of grace and the Holy Spirit.

I hope that answers your question.

Ignatius’ letter refers to Docetism, not necessarily Gnosticism. Some Gnostics may have had views similar to docetism, which is the belief that Jesus’ body was illusory or absent. But others didn’t deny the existence of His body. The Valentinian Gnostics don’t seem to have held to docetism… If we go back to the Gospel of Philip, Jesus was born of an earthly father and mother:

Later it says:

Christ had to come into the world as a man, in order for the world to receive Him. The Gospel of Judas is another good example of a Gnostic sect that accepted that Christ incarnated into a body:

This text also portrays Christ as being able to leave his body at will, but it clearly indicates that He had one… It’s a Sethian Gnostic text, which is an older school of Gnosticism that influenced both the Valentinians and Basiledeans.

I quote from Gnostic sources a lot here because I think it’s important to understand the Gnostics from their own words, and not what heresiologists wrote about them. We’ve found, since the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library, that some of what the heresiologists wrote was pretty accurate (for example, their quotes from Gnostic scripture), and some of it wasn’t so accurate… Largely due to their own religious biases.

Thank you for this well written reply.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Also, how do you feel about the Theosophical Society and the teachings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky?

I think it’s a little woo-woo. One of our bishops has friendly relations with the Theosophical Society, and will often do lectures on Gnosticism there. I’ve met some Theosophists here in Seattle, and they’re very nice people… I’m not attracted to Theosophy myself. I think Blavatsky’s teachings on the unity of religions is good, but when she starts talking about Atlantis and Lemuria, I can’t take her too seriously.

You mention that Christianity had grown up in several different areas, while some were more influenced by Platonic thought and others by Jewish thought, etc… I agree with this – so you would not say that there was a specific way of thinking that is known by “orthodoxy” that was set out by the Apostles?

I think as the apostles went out to spread the faith, it would have been difficult for them to cover literally every question a person could have. Once one of them moved on to another location, and the community they’d gathered was left on its own, the people would naturally have more questions. But without a very effective means of communication over long distances, they’d start to come up with explanations as a community. If there was a major question, there was always the possibility of writing a letter – but as we know from communicating online, when you write down something, you know what you mean… but other people might interpret it differently. It would even be difficult for the apostles to communicate with each other over long distances. Add to that the fact that Christians were persecuted for centuries, communication between each community would get even more difficult.

It’s also difficult to say exactly what the apostles taught and didn’t teach. They may have told people of Jesus the messiah, told them His teachings, that he died and rose again. But then people would begin to question the meaning of these things – clearly there were wildly differing opinions on why He died and the manner of His resurrection, when you read different books by Christians of the early centuries. It makes sense that eventually councils had to be called to hash out some of these issues.

I believe that part of the apostles’ teachings would have included the inner teachings taught to them by Jesus. They likely would have passed these on to a select few who were able to comprehend them, just as Christ revealed them to people when they were ready. But even those would probably start to differ from group to group, as time went on – just like the telephone game! Eventually the inner teachings were rejected by the church that gained the most power and influence in the Christian world.

The apostles certainly laid the foundation for the faith, but as individual Christian groups expanded on those teachings, each group would become more and more different from each other – and they’d all be convinced that they were right. They had the “true” faith.

I’ve always found it hard to register that one Apostle would teach one thing, and another would go off and teach something else to a community in another region. Also, if there was anything we needed to know – wouldn’t the Bishops which the Apostles had ordained, have told us?

There may have been things they didn’t think to mention – there may also have been things that actually never taught, but people wondered about later. Passing information on is extremely difficult, because once something leaves your lips (or is read in a book) it’s open to the interpretation of the listener. Valentinus is a good example. He was a Gnostic bishop who, according to the written record, was almost elected bishop of Rome in the first half of the 2nd century, but lost by just a few votes. He was a student of Theudas, who in turn was a follower of St. Paul. Theudas taught him the inner teachings that St. Paul had taught privately to his inner circle. So, Paul the apostle taught his successor, who then taught his successor – yet, these teachings were rejected by orthodoxy. (I should say, Valentinus was never declared a heretic in his lifetime… Heresiologists that wrote after him considered his teachings heresy). I guess the point here is that the apostles passing on their teachings to bishops isn’t a fail-safe system.

But I have heard that the belief was already present, they just needed a way to clarify themselves better for those that didn’t understand.

I think there were certainly what you could call proto-orthodox Christians: Christians that held some of the beliefs people consider orthodox today. So they were probably present from the beginning, along with other beliefs. Those beliefs were accepted by the church that rose to power which helped them get commonly accepted… I’d still question the validity of them though.

For instance, if I started using the word “homousion” and talking in Greek to St. Peter. He may tell me that he speaks Aramaic and doesn’t understand what I’m saying. If I were then to explain to him in Aramaic why I believe that Jesus Christ is of ONE essence with the Father, he would then say “Yes! That is what we were taught.”

But do we necessarily know that he ever taught that? I’m not saying I disagree with it, but it wasn’t declared dogma until 300 years later… so it’s possible that that was one of many beliefs circulating amongst Christians, and it’s the one that happened to get accepted.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Thank you for this well written reply.

Thank you for asking. I love Eucharistic theology!

 

[BonSecours]

I’ve only read through half this thread so far, but it’s getting late and I have a couple questions, so I apologize if these have already been asked.

First of all, what exactly is the role of Sophia in Gnosticism? I know that she’s viewed as the creator of the demiurge, but other than that I don’t know much.

Second, I once read somewhere that Sophia entered into Mary in order to give birth to Jesus through her. Is this a Gnostic belief? I really don’t remember where I read this.

Third, I know there’s some people out there who equate Sophia with the Holy Spirit. Is this compatible with Gnosticism, or is it more of a result of people trying to bring the feminine divine back to Christianity?

Thanks!