Ask a Gnostic

[someperson555]

Gnostic one,

The OHCAC does not accept the Gospel of Philip as Scripture. It is a writing you refer to however no Christian accepts this as Scripture.

Your Gnostic view of salvation is by “knowing” not through Christ and is not consistent with the Apostolic deposit of Faith. The Gospel of Thomas is not Scripture.

:doh2:

 

[someperson555]

I can see similarities between Gnosticism and Buddhism, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it was influenced by Buddhist thought. There are some (particularly New Agers) who say that Jesus was trained by Buddhists… But I don’t think there’s any evidence for this. The similarity may be nothing more than coincidence. As far as I know, the Buddhist idea of reincarnation is that the soul transmigrates into another human body, so you don’t really get reincarnated as a god, so much as you get liberated from the cycle of reincarnation. There’s much debate on whether (all) Gnostics believed in reincarnation, but again, I can see a similarity. The goal of the Gnostic is to be liberated from the control of the demiurge, and return to his/her source in the Fullness of God. Christ came to show us our divine origins, so that we could return to our source.

now obvoiusly both buddhist and gnostic teachings are similar to catholic teaching. but upon closer examination youll notice where they differ. catholics as opposed to gnostics and buddhists dont regard the body as “evil” or “unnatural”. in fact in catholic teaching the body is held in high esteem. according to catholic teaching, the material world wa created by God and therefore is good. physical pleasure is good too. obviously the body has a special place in creation. therefore its not absurd to assume that in heaven we will continue to have physical pleasures such as sex and food or something similar.
another big difference i noticed between gnostic christianity and catholicism, is that gnostics view salvation as an “accomplishment”, whereas catholics view it as grace. and i think that is one of the biggest differences between the two religions. according to us catholics, the most necessary thing for salvation is love. its not ascetic practices or secret knowledge…
I can’t emphasize this enough, but Gnostics don’t see the body as evil. It’s imperfect, but that’s not quite the same thing. In fact, I think the orthodox teaching has a more negative view of physical existence than Gnostics, because orthodox Christians feel that man brought evil into the world through a sinful act, and had to be save from that sin. Gnostics don’t believe that at all. I think the idea that Gnostics see the body as evil is nothing more than a misunderstanding of Gnosticism that’s been passed down through the centuries, and I’m really interesting in reading a source for the reason for that claim. Gnostic scripture has a very positive view of the body, since it’s seen as yet another emanation of God, and a tool for Gnosis.

Scripture tells us not to go to one extreme or the other: “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” (Gospel of Philip).

We also believe that salvation is a grace, it’s not an accomplishment. It’s through the grace of God that we can know Him. The Gospel of Philip also speaks of the necessity of love (along with the other theological virtues) on the path of Gnosis:

Gnosis is a path to salvation, and without love we can never grow in Gnosis. The Gospel of Thomas tells us that the Kingdom of Heaven is spread out upon the earth, and if that’s true, then we can’t help but love our fellow man.

thank you gnosisofthomas. very informative. i have always valued knowledge too, though as a catholic i dont think its strictly required for salvation (aborted babies for example). i do admit that attaining holiness does require knowledge too.

sorry for my mistaken assumptions, i dont know that much about gnosticism to tell yo the truth. i have an additional question. do you guys have confessions? (i dont know if i already asked so just ignore it if i did)

 

[gnosisofthomas]

i have an additional question. do you guys have confessions? (i dont know if i already asked so just ignore it if i did)

We do, but confession and absolution are addressed in a few different ways in our church…

In general, confessing directly to God through private prayer is sufficient (basically the same as it is for most Protestants). Like our Catechism says, verbal confession to a priest isn’t required, although it may be desirable.

The General Absolution after the Confiteor at Mass also absolves us of sin – I know that’s not the case in the RCC. But it goes back to the previous statement, because we’re concentrating on our sins during the Confiteor, and then the priest gives Absolution.

We also have a formal rite for the Sacrament of Penance, but that’s used more for when you have a particularly heavy matter to get off your conscience. Personally, I prefer verbal confession… But I have an RC background, so that’s what I’m comfortable with.

 

[InHisImage]

I’ve really enjoyed reading through this thread. I just recently returned to Christianity, and I’m trying to decide which church to attend. I used to be a Gnostic (of sorts. I was rather eclectic, and was having a lot of trouble understanding the Gnostic scriptures) but my mother eventually convinced me to leave it (well, that and the fact that I couldn’t find other Gnostics to talk to, since there’s no Gnostic church here (that I know of)), and I eventually left Christianity because Gnosticism was the only form of it that made sense to me. Now that I’ve returned, I’ve been looking at various sects and the two that I agree with most are the Liberal Catholic Church (thelccusa.org) and Ecclesia Gnostica (somebody else has already posted a link, and the OP is already a member so there’s no reason for me to link to its site). However, the same problem I had before is what I’m having now: lack of understanding + lack of local church for either group. Since you’re a Subdeacon, I thought you might be a good person to talk to about the Ecclesia Gnostica (I’m considering contacting the LCCUSA as well), so I was wondering if you would be open to PMing and/or discussing Gnostic scriptures and the modern Gnostic Church over the phone? If not, I understand, I was just wondering.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

I’ve really enjoyed reading through this thread. I just recently returned to Christianity, and I’m trying to decide which church to attend. I used to be a Gnostic (of sorts. I was rather eclectic, and was having a lot of trouble understanding the Gnostic scriptures) but my mother eventually convinced me to leave it (well, that and the fact that I couldn’t find other Gnostics to talk to, since there’s no Gnostic church here (that I know of)), and I eventually left Christianity because Gnosticism was the only form of it that made sense to me. Now that I’ve returned, I’ve been looking at various sects and the two that I agree with most are the Liberal Catholic Church (thelccusa.org) and Ecclesia Gnostica (somebody else has already posted a link, and the OP is already a member so there’s no reason for me to link to its site). However, the same problem I had before is what I’m having now: lack of understanding + lack of local church for either group. Since you’re a Subdeacon, I thought you might be a good person to talk to about the Ecclesia Gnostica (I’m considering contacting the LCCUSA as well), so I was wondering if you would be open to PMing and/or discussing Gnostic scriptures and the modern Gnostic Church over the phone? If not, I understand, I was just wondering.

I would be happy to talk with you. Feel free to message me on here when you get a chance.

I’m somewhat familiar with the LCC too, since our church is closely related… A lot of LCC texts are required reading for our clergy.

 

[InHisImage]

I would be happy to talk with you. Feel free to message me on here when you get a chance.

I’m somewhat familiar with the LCC too, since our church is closely related… A lot of LCC texts are required reading for our clergy.

Thanks! Looking forward to talking to you.

 

[LivingWaters7]

still reading this thread, but I’m curious about a few things (perhaps they were already answered):

Firstly, my interest in Gnosticism pretty much stems from various similarities (or alleged similarities, since I’m not really familiar with Gnosticism) with LDS (Mormon) beliefs and practices. For example, various LDS prophets and leaders, as well as scriptures, talk about the importance of “knowledge” or “intelligence” in salvation. What does “gnosis” refer to, and what is it’s relationship to salvation?

What is the “bridal chamber” sacrament? I believe I’ve seen LDS apologists reference this rite in comparison to the LDS temple practice of eternal marriage (sealing), however I’m wondering if there really is a relationship between the two, since looking at the all-knowing Wikipedia article on Valentinianism and how it describes the bridal chamber sacrament make it out to have nothing to do with a marriage ceremony between two people, but that it was a way to unite with your Higher Self. Also, LDS make much of the fact that mirrors were used to decorate the room this took place in, since the sealing rooms in temples have huge mirrors facing each other.

How does the Gnostic understanding of sacraments differ (if it does) from the traditional Catholic/Orthodox viewpoint?

Thanks!

 

[pablope]

still reading this thread, but I’m curious about a few things (perhaps they were already answered):
place in, since the sealing rooms in temples have huge mirrors facing each other.

How does the Gnostic understanding of sacraments differ (if it does) from the traditional Catholic/Orthodox viewpoint?

Thanks!

Gnosticims is, I think as I can remember, is basically the denial of the sacramental nature of the Church. It relies on knowing, instead of the sacramanents, which are channels of God’s grace.

Ireneus was the ECF who wrote against the Gnostics in AD200 or so. So, read his “Agaisnt Heresies.”

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Gnosticims is, I think as I can remember, is basically the denial of the sacramental nature of the Church. It relies on knowing, instead of the sacramanents, which are channels of God’s grace.

Ireneus was the ECF who wrote against the Gnostics in AD200 or so. So, read his “Agaisnt Heresies.”

That’s not exactly true, Gnostics both and ancient and modern have placed high importance on the sacraments because it is through them that we receive the grace to have Gnosis.

Honestly, while *Against Heresies *is an interesting read in regards to history, reading it to learn about Gnosticism is like reading a book on Catholicism written by a Baptist. It’s good to understand different points of view, but if you want to learn about a religion, you should study it in it’s own context rather than rely on what outsiders have to say about it.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Hi LivingWaters7, sorry for the slow response… I tried to respond yesterday but lost everything I typed when I clicked submit.

Firstly, my interest in Gnosticism pretty much stems from various similarities (or alleged similarities, since I’m not really familiar with Gnosticism) with LDS (Mormon) beliefs and practices. For example, various LDS prophets and leaders, as well as scriptures, talk about the importance of “knowledge” or “intelligence” in salvation. What does “gnosis” refer to, and what is it’s relationship to salvation?

I honestly don’t know much about the LDS church, so I don’t know what they have to say about the importance of knowledge. But for Gnostics, the definition of Gnosis was best described by an ancient Gnostic as revelatory and salvific knowledge “of who we were, of what we have become, of where we were, of wherein we have been thrown, of whereto we are hastening, of what we are being freed, of what birth really is, and of what rebirth really is.”

It’s an experiential knowledge of God, Who is our ultimate source – not just that God created us, but that we are actually part of God. What Christ reveals in the Gnostic scriptures is that you don’t just have to believe, you *can *know. And that knowledge is what He came to help us obtain.

How does the Gnostic understanding of sacraments differ (if it does) from the traditional Catholic/Orthodox viewpoint?

It’s really not all that different… It’s an outward sign of an inward grace from God. The sacraments help break down the barriers to Gnosis that we experience while living in the world. Gnostics do have two extra sacraments that were lost to orthodoxy: Redemption and Bride Chamber. These, along with Baptism, Chrism, and Eucharist are the 5 initiatory sacraments. Then there are the sustaining sacraments: Holy Orders and Extreme Unction/Healing Unction. We also consider Penance and Marriage to be secondary or substitutional sacraments, because Penance has been substituted for the Sacrament of Redemption, and Marriage for the Bride Chamber.

If you’d like to read more about the Gnostic understanding of the sacraments, I’d recommend taking a look at the Gnostic Catechism, Lessons IX, X, and XI: gnosis.org/ecclesia/catechism.htm. I’d also recommend the Gospel of Philip, which is one of the earliest Christian writings on sacramental theology, from the Valentinian school of Gnosticism: gnosis.org/naghamm/gop.html

What is the “bridal chamber” sacrament? I believe I’ve seen LDS apologists reference this rite in comparison to the LDS temple practice of eternal marriage (sealing), however I’m wondering if there really is a relationship between the two, since looking at the all-knowing Wikipedia article on Valentinianism and how it describes the bridal chamber sacrament make it out to have nothing to do with a marriage ceremony between two people, but that it was a way to unite with your Higher Self. Also, LDS make much of the fact that mirrors were used to decorate the room this took place in, since the sealing rooms in temples have huge mirrors facing each other.

You’re correct, the Mystery of the Bride Chamber doesn’t have anything to do with worldy marriage, it’s about uniting with your higher spiritual self rather than your material body. I’ve read Mormon commentaries on the sacrament too, and while it’s interesting to think about, it can’t be compared to eternal marriage because it’s not the uniting of two individual people. I think the imagery of mirrors is probably symbolic, but the truth is, we can’t really tell how this ancient mystery was practiced. In our church, we don’t practice the Bride Chamber through a ritual sacrament, but we do believe the sacrament can be received by the soul in its own realm, usually after bodily death. It’s possible that the earthly form of the sacrament may one day be restored, but for now it’s lost to history.

I tend to think of the reference to mirrors in the Gospel of Philip in the way Jesus has used the word in other scriptures. For example, in the Acts of John He says: “I am a lamp to thee who seest me. I am a mirror to thee who understandest me. I am a door to thee who knockest at me. I am a way for thee a wayfarer… See thyself in me who speak; And seeing what I do, keep silence on my mysteries.”

 

[vames]

Thanks for starting this thread!
A few questions:

How many Ecclesiae Gnosticae exist? I see that your Creed is different from this one. What relationship do you have with this cult?

How do you interpret the Wisdom evoked in Proverbs, Sirach, Baruch? Also, how do you understand the “Sedes sapientiae” from the Litany of Loreto?

What exactly is the serpent for you? Is it linked with your Eucharist? If so, how?

 

[gnosisofthomas]

How many Ecclesiae Gnosticae exist? I see that your Creed is different from this one. What relationship do you have with this cult?

There are a lot of churches not associated with us that have “Ecclesia Gnostica” in their title… Most of them are Christian, but they are more recent establishments that started us separately from our church. The Ecclesia Gnostica was originally called the Pre-Nicene Gnostic Catholic Church, but when +Richard Duc de Palatine died in the early 70s and +Stephan Hoeller succeeded him as the regionary bishop of the Americas, he changed the name to Ecclesia Gnostica (presumably because it’s less of a mouthful!).

Yeah, our credo is quite a bit different from the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica’s, haha! They’re actually not a Christian religion, and have no connection to the ancient Gnostic Christians. They started with Aleister Crowley, who considered himself a prophet and started the religion of Thelema. The short story with him is that he was involved in the 19th century occult order called the Order of the Golden Dawn, and through some sort of magical ritual, he was contacted by a spirit he believed was his Holy Guardian Angel, who dictated the book Liber al vel Legis to him. This is the central book of Thelema, and they believe that when this was revealed in 1904, it was the start of a new aeon which made all other religions obsolete. They have their own Gnostic Mass, which I’ve read but never seen performed, and just reading over it you can see that it differs considerably from a real Christian Mass.

Our Mass is actually very similar to the Tridentine Mass, except that it’s in English and we include Gnostic scripture in our prayers and lectionary. If a Catholic came to Mass at our church, they’d be familiar with what was going on… But if you or I went to the Thelemic Mass, we’d probably be pretty lost, and extremely uncomfortable!

How do you interpret the Wisdom evoked in Proverbs, Sirach, Baruch? Also, how do you understand the “Sedes sapientiae” from the Litany of Loreto?

We use these books quite a bit, usually references to wisdom are understood as Sophia. We don’t really use the Litany of Loreto in our church, although I like to pray it privately. We do have a Litany of Sophia that we pray publicly, but it uses titles of the Most Holy Sophia rather than the Blessed Virgin Mary. “Sedes Sapientiae” isn’t a title our church uses, although personally I love it. It’s funny you bring it up because I’ve always thought that if I’m ever ordained to the priesthood, I’d like to have my parish named after her. For me personally, I tend to interpret Throne of Wisdom as referring to Sophia (often in icons, Sophia is depicted sitting on a throne). I know traditionally it refers to the Mother of God, which is also an appropriate association – she is the Theotokos after all, and Christ and Sophia are seen as syzygies in Gnosticism.

What exactly is the serpent for you? Is it linked with your Eucharist? If so, how?

The serpent isn’t overtly connected to the Eucharist, as the Eucharist makes present the sacrifice of Christ on the altar – His descent into the limitations of matter. But we do read from the Apocryphon of John in the lectionary on some days, which mentions the serpent. When the demiurge first created man, the sparks of divine light he’d stolen being trapped in them, Sophia begged God to save them from the error that this creation had caused. So the holy female power (the Holy Spirit) entered the serpent, and taught Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge so that they would wake up and know that they were children of God, and that the false god (the demiurge) was deceiving them. So the Adam and Eve story is really a salvation story for Gnostics, it’s the first act of salvation. Christ came to fulfill the work of salvation that started in the very beginning.

If you haven’t read them, you might like to read the Apocryphon of John (also called the Secret Book of John), or the Hypostasis of the Archons. They’re both available online, and contain the Gnostic creation myth. They both describe a take on the Genesis story that differs quite a bit from the orthodox interpretation, and lays the foundation for the whole Gnostic story of salvation.

 

[Jeanne1184]

I just finished reading the entire thread and enjoyed it very much. I do, however, see some things differently at this time.

. 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.

Gospel of Philip: "As for the Wisdom who is called “the barren,” she is the mother of the angels. And the companion of the …] Mary Magdalene. …] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to** kiss her often on her …].**

Placing ‘mouth’ in this spot, to me, is risky business. Personally, I read ‘forehead’ when I read it. To paint Christ as carnal (without cause) takes away from Him. Even if Christ’s flesh did not become perfect until after crucifixion and death - (after all, He came to condemn the flesh), Christ nonetheless followed Spirit, not flesh. So, why would Christ do anything to give the appearance that He was sexually intimate with Mary Magdalene? Would He think folks then (or now) would read it as anything other than carnal intimacy?

For all we know from the document, Chirst could have blown His Divine Breath on His fingertips and then touched Mary Magdalen’s lips often, yes? Has anyone ever figured out what Paul’s Holy Kiss is? - and could it be Chirst extended that greeting more often to Mary Magdalene?

Anyway, there appears to be an interesting article (‘The Kiss’) that I just found but haven’t had time to ponder: (about halfway down the page):

maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/studies/?vol=1&id=31

It is interesting that the Nag Hammadi Library now has that sentence with ‘mouth’ - without brackets! The devil has infiltrated at the level of the edit button. How sad. Wonder what else has been ‘filled in’ for us as if it existed in the original document?

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."

I sense a deeper mystery here when reading the interlinear text. Perhaps it is saying that Mary Magdalene fills all of the positions because she ‘completed the process’ of ‘dying while yet living’?

metalog.org/files/ph_interlin/ph036.html

“36. There were three Mariams who walked with the Lord at all times: his mother and [his] sister and (the) Magdalene—this one who is called his Companion. Thus his (true) Mother and Sister and Mate is (also called) ‘Mariam’.”

 

[Jeanne1184]

(Con’t)

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.

The Path to Gnosis can be taught - it is up to the individual to follow it, or not. If followed, they will arrive at the experience of the Holy Spirit - conscious contact. If that is followed, then Indwelling occurs, and then onward, inward, and upward.

Many have had the initial experience of the Holy Spirit but because Awareness wasn’t taught first, they missed It in consciousness. That trickster force within us (that no one wants to believe really exists) has no trouble at all calling the Subtle Experience somethng mundane - and folks listen. “Awareness is the answer; willingness to See, the key.”

The purpose of ceremonial magic is to elevate oneself, and contribute to the healing of reality. If they’re hexing people, they’re not very good magicians because they’re missing the point of it all. The problem with a lot of ceremonial magicians is that it becomes a huge ego trip for some of them, and if they’re not practicing magic for the right reasons, it can destroy them – drive them insane. This is what Aleister Crowley was getting at when he’d talk about the Left Hand Path. A truly valuable spiritual practice, whether magical or religious (and I’d wager they’re basically the same thing), should lead to humility, faith, hope, and love. A truly great magician knows that our will and God’s Will should be one and the same thing – if it’s not, then you’re doing it wrong.

I must admit this surprised me coming from a gnostic viewpoint. Practicing magic for the right reasons? Chirst, the Magician? Miracles are magic (witchcraft - sorcery - spells)? While witches and alchemists were useful for ‘cures’, the only permanent cure for the moral body is to die and resurrect while still living.

For me, if someone uses anything other than the name of Jesus Christ, prayer and fasting in Faith - they are headed in the wrong direction. If I am not led by the Holy Spirit as an instrument of His Peace to say or do something particular that accomplishes healing for another person in some way, then I am not following Christ - and it is not Christ who is doing the healing through Forgiveness of sins.

Luke 5:23 …which is easier – to say, Thy sins have been forgiven thee? or to say, Arise, and walk?

The Magi were ‘good’ magicians - and they traveled a great distance to bow before Jesus in the manger.

2Thes 2:9-10 tells us that there will come a time when the AntiChrist will do many wondrous things that are by counterfeit means…and if we don’t have Wisdom within us to be able to tell the difference, we’ll follow blindly.

All magic is counterfeit means which calls on powers and principalities, not Christ. Christ needs no spells or rituals. When Christ used mud and Spit to make the blind man see, He was telling us more than meets the carnal eyes.

WH Auden leads us in a similar vein:

Some thirty inches from my Nose
The frontier of my Person goes,
And all the untilled air between
Is private pagus or demesne.
Stranger, unless with bedroom eyes
I beckon you to fraternize,
Beware of rudely crossing it:
I have no gun, but I can Spit.

To me, by ‘bedroom eyes’ he refers to communing with like minds in Christ - as in recognizing one who has also been to the ‘bridal chamber’ - not carnal companionship. (I capitalized Nose and Spit because I know they have spiritual significance.)

“Cultivate the garden for the nose and the eyes will take care of themselves.” - Robert Louis Stevenson

Your examples of Gnostic Confession doesn’t go along with the Gospel of Thomas, nor my experience of the following quote being a key element to ‘waking up’ to the Holy Spirit.

1. Jesus said, “If you bring forth what is within you, what you
   bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is
   within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.”

Whether this refers to the Holy Spirit or to secret sins - (to me it applies to both), . I’m interested in how the Gnostic Church applies this saying in practice, if you are still available to answer questions.

Thanks for all the time and attention to this thread, GnosisofThomas and other contributors, and to all who asked questions. You asked many that wouldn’t have occurred to me.

 

[JustaServant]

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!

How is Gnoticism different from other forms of fundamentalist Christianity? They also are “knowledge=enlightenment” based.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

How is Gnosticism different from other forms of fundamentalist Christianity? They also are “knowledge=enlightenment” based.

Hi there, JustaServant. Sorry I took so long to respond, but I’ve been thinking about your question and what it means. I’m afraid I’m a little confused about what you mean when you say that fundamentalism is based on knowledge/enlightenment. Could you elaborate on that please?

The simple answer would be that Gnosticism is completely different from fundamentalist Christianity. Fundamentalism, while it has evolved over time, is based on five fundamentals:

1. Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
2. Virgin birth of Jesus
3. Belief that Christ’s death was the atonement for sin
4. Bodily resurrection of Jesus
5. Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus

We aren’t Bible literalists, and we believe that scripture can be a good guide, but that it’s still the creation of human beings. We also recognize more scriptures than just the ones contained in the Bible.

We don’t believe that Christ died on the cross for our sins; rather the sacrifice of Christ was His descent into matter for our redemption.

We also don’t get too hung up on the historicity of things like the virgin birth, resurrection, and miracles. We tend to regard these things mythopoetically. That is to say, we’re concerned with truth, not fact – and myths can be more true than fact!

 

[vames]

I guess JustaServant refers to the question of salvation and its fundamentalist answers, as in “salvation = faith alone” or “salvation = works alone”, wondering if the Gnostic answer is equally simple and clear-cut, i.e. fundamentalist (“salvation = knowledge”).

A belated thanks for your answers to my questions and for continuing the thread. Reading gnostic texts can do wonders for one’s perspective about faith!
Another thing - how do you understand this paragraph, especially as translations differ and in some instances the meaning is different?

But when he saw us rejoicing, he said, “Woe to you who lack an advocate! Woe to you who stand in need of grace! Blessed will they be who have spoken out and obtained grace for themselves. Liken yourselves to foreigners; of what sort are they in the eyes of your city? Why are you disturbed when you cast yourselves away of your own accord and separate yourselves from your city? Why do you abandon your dwelling place of your own accord, making it ready for those who want to dwell in it? O you outcasts and fugitives, woe to you, for you will be caught! Or do you perhaps think that the Father is a lover of mankind, or that he is won over without prayers, or that he grants remission to one on another’s behalf, or that he bears with one who asks? - For he knows the desire, and also what it is that the flesh needs! - (Or do you think) that it is not this (flesh) that desires the soul? For without the soul, the body does not sin, just as the soul is not saved without the spirit. But if the soul is saved (when it is) without evil, and the spirit is also saved, then the body becomes free from sin. For it is the spirit that raises the soul, but the body that kills it; that is, it is it (the soul) which kills itself. Verily, I say unto you, he will not forgive the soul the sin by any means, nor the flesh the guilt; for none of those who have worn the flesh will be saved. For do you think that many have found the kingdom of heaven? Blessed is he who has seen himself as a fourth one in heaven!”

gnosis.org/naghamm/jam.html

Now when he saw our rejoicing, he said: “Woe to you who are in want of an advocate! Woe to you who are in need of grace! Blessed are those who have spoken freely and have produced grace for themselves. Make yourselves like strangers; of what sort are they in the estimation of your city? Why are you troubled when you oust yourselves of your own accord and depart from your city? Why do you abandon your dwelling place of your own accord, readying it for those who desire to dwell in it? O you exiles and fugitives! Woe to you, because you will be caught! **Or perhaps you imagine that the Father is a lover of humanity? Or that he is persuaded by prayers? Or that he is gracious to one on behalf of another? Or that he bears with one who seeks? **For he knows the desire and also that which the flesh needs. Because it is not the flesh which yearns for the soul. For without the soul the body does not sin, just as the soul is not saved without the Spirit. But if the soul is saved when it is without evil, and if the spirit also is saved, then the body becomes sinless. For it is the spirit which animates the soul, but it is the body which kills it - that is, it is the soul which kills itself. Truly I say to you, the Father will not forgive the sin of the soul at all, nor the guilt of the flesh. For none of those who have worn the flesh will be saved. For do you imagine that many have found the Kingdom of Heaven? Blessed is the one who has seen himself as a fourth one in Heaven.”

gnosis.org/naghamm/jam2.html