Gnostic Elements in Early Catholicism

[Daniel_Keeran]

 18 C***onsequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.***

How do you explain “for just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners” except as original sin? it was how all the early church father translated it. It was how Augustine translated it. It was how Calvin translated it.

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

This is a virtual admission of gnosticism. Many ECF’s and Augustine (former Manichaean gnostic) were under gnostic influence as well as many Protestants. The Romans 5 passage proves too much if you take it to mean many are condemned at conception, then many are righteous at conception. Not so. Through Adam’s disobedience, the many are condemned by their own sin, just as through Christ’s obedience the many are made righteous, by their own obedience, whether Jew or Gentile. It is not possible for a little baby to inherit the sin or guilt of Adam at conception; this is a doctrine of demons.

 

[annem]

I have read these letters. If Ignatius went to be martyred willingly and had a faithful choice to avoid it, he was indeed misguided. He should have been hindered by the church if possible and without denial of Christ.

I really am baffled by your reading the letters of Ignatius and 1 Clement and then thinking that somehow Christianity was infested with Gnostic thoughts. Those are both proof positive that the church didn’t borrow from anybody, surely…unless you have some differemt take on them?

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Well, it’s certainly not Gnostic because there weren’t any Gnostics around at the time.

However, yes, Jesus does say those who can be eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom should be. Aren’t you parsing things a little too closely here? There is the clear passage from Christ himself, and the minor one from Paul indicating that celibacy was good. It is therefore rock solid that celibacy for the sake of the kingdom was encouraged from the time of Christ. What more do you need for proof that it was therefore present in the church from the start?

Puzzled, but May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

Of course celibacy was present from the beginning, but nowhere is it taught that celibacy is superior except in gnostic/Pythagorean/Platonic circles.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I don’t think the saints who went to their death because of the Romans were misguided, but then I am a Catholic. And the martyrs continue. Just the last century, there were more Catholics martyred for their faith than at any time in history, 40 million according to one book.

At any rate, it clearly shows that the doctrine of trying to be perfect as Christ was perfect, and the willingness to suffer for Christ was always present.

May God grant you a million miracles, ANnem

Certainly every Christian should strive to be perfect “to walk in the light just as he is in the light,” but all have sinned, and anyone who says he has not sinned is a liar. It is the blood of Christ that cleanses the baptized Christian and throughout his life “If we confess our sins” (1 John1:8,9) so that he can be presented blameless before Christ on that Day.

 

[annem]

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

But surely John was talking about Docetists here, not Gnostics. Docetists weren’t Gnostics, there were a form of Christian heresy. Gnostics were small philosophical schools, and they faded away pretty quickly. But the arguments about who Christ was, and whether or not he was fully one with the father, were truly huge, huge problems for the early church. There was a time when it almost seemed like the Arians would win. Well, there is always some group or other that wants to crush us. And usually more than one, too. Funny thing, though. It doesn’t matter how much they control, or how many there are. They never win.

Paul also refers to those who practice harsh treatment of the body and forbid marriage. Thes are due to docetic tendencies already popular in Roman society because of Greek influence.

In Roman society? Why would you think that? Harsh treatment of the body and forbidding marriage sounds like the Jewish Essenes.

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Sorry, but I think you need to consider the entire context.

43"You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemies* and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven*. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Comments? May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

The bold explains it all. Being “perfect” in this passage refers to being just as God is toward both the evil and the good, sending rain and sun to both; therefore love your enemies as God loves them and you will be perfect in this way.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

But surely John was talking about Docetists here, not Gnostics. Docetists weren’t Gnostics, there were a form of Christian heresy. Gnostics were small philosophical schools, and they faded away pretty quickly. But the arguments about who Christ was, and whether or not he was fully one with the father, were truly huge, huge problems for the early church. There was a time when it almost seemed like the Arians would win. Well, there is always some group or other that wants to crush us. And usually more than one, too. Funny thing, though. It doesn’t matter how much they control, or how many there are. They never win.

In Roman society? Why would you think that? Harsh treatment of the body and forbidding marriage sounds like the Jewish Essenes.

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

Docetism yes. And this influence was from Greek and Roman philosophy that influenced many ECF’s. Docetists emphasized ascetic contemplative celibate life as the way to God, just like early and modern Catholicism. Gnostics had much in common with docetists and drank from the same well. They considered themselves highly sophisticated and philosophical and this placed pressure on church leaders to follow suit, which many did.

 

[annem]

This is a virtual admission of gnosticism. Many ECF’s and Augustine (former Manichaean gnostic) were under gnostic influence as well as many Protestants. The Romans 5 passage proves too much if you take it to mean many are condemned at conception, then many are righteous at conception. Not so. Through Adam’s disobedience, the many are condemned by their own sin, just as through Christ’s obedience the many are made righteous, by their own obedience, whether Jew or Gentile. It is not possible for a little baby to inherit the sin or guilt of Adam at conception; this is a doctrine of demons.

Yikes, Daniel, you seem to be online just as I am…and we are both typing too fast/ Was this your last comment?

Love the comment about “virtual admission of gnosticism”. Ha, as if! Church fathers and Augustine lived hundreds of years later when, yes, there were Gnostics around. Unlike Paul.

Wait…are you a Protestant? I was assuming you were another atheist. Before I answer any more questions, would you mind answering that? I note that you have “Christian” up there as your religion, but a lot of people on this forum turn out to be atheists or cult followers of one kind or another so I am just checking. I don’t mind discussing things with a Protestant, but I less enthusiastic about it than talking to a cult member or atheist. Hey, as long as you have Jesus and the bible, I’m happy. (All my relatives are atheist; these are the people who really, really worry me,).’

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

 

[ALotLessThumb]

You defend “any infallible position the Church takes” yet claim you are not a Christian?

Yes, because if you re-read my post, I am not calling the church infallible. We are talking about the position the Catholic Church has taken itself in the scope of Christianity. I’m of the opinion that you’re concerns don’t call into question the infallible positions the Church stands by, and that has nothing to my doubts about Christianity itself.

 

[ALotLessThumb]

ALotLessThumb

Yes, I certainly agree, and so do the last fifty years of biblical scholarship. There was an entire school of biblical scholarship from about 1880-1930 called the ‘History of Religions’ which argued that many Christian dogmas came from Hellenistic or pagan myths. All of these theories crashed to the ground with further investigation of early Christianity. In fact, all the New Testament and early church documents are saturated, utterly, with the Old Testament and with Jewish background. The evidence for Hellenistic or pagan influence was pretty much zero.

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

Yeah, I agree Annem, early Christianity certainly was “Judaic.” I am of the opinion that one reason we don’t have many more sources in the earliest days is because of the indistinguishable nature of Jewish sects in Roman world. People forget that the term “to proselytize” was originally used to describe Jewish converts in the Roman Empire.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Yes, because if you re-read my post, I am not calling the church infallible. We are talking about the position the Catholic Church has taken itself in the scope of Christianity. I’m of the opinion that you’re concerns don’t call into question the infallible positions the Church stands by, and that has nothing to my doubts about Christianity itself.

I would be more reassured if a Catholic speaking for the church said my concerns do not call into question the infallible positions of the church.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Yikes, Daniel, you seem to be online just as I am…and we are both typing too fast/ Was this your last comment?

Love the comment about “virtual admission of gnosticism”. Ha, as if! Church fathers and Augustine lived hundreds of years later when, yes, there were Gnostics around. Unlike Paul.

Wait…are you a Protestant? I was assuming you were another atheist. Before I answer any more questions, would you mind answering that? I note that you have “Christian” up there as your religion, but a lot of people on this forum turn out to be atheists or cult followers of one kind or another so I am just checking. I don’t mind discussing things with a Protestant, but I less enthusiastic about it than talking to a cult member or atheist. Hey, as long as you have Jesus and the bible, I’m happy. (All my relatives are atheist; these are the people who really, really worry me,).’

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

I have Jesus and the bible and am just a Christian, neither Catholic nor Protestant. And I also have an atheist ministry on youtube. I cannot be a Catholic because of the many gnostic and docetic elements that were absorbed unwittingly by some ECF’s.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

But surely John was talking about Docetists here, not Gnostics. Docetists weren’t Gnostics, there were a form of Christian heresy. Gnostics were small philosophical schools, and they faded away pretty quickly. But the arguments about who Christ was, and whether or not he was fully one with the father, were truly huge, huge problems for the early church. There was a time when it almost seemed like the Arians would win. Well, there is always some group or other that wants to crush us. And usually more than one, too. Funny thing, though. It doesn’t matter how much they control, or how many there are. They never win.

In Roman society? Why would you think that? Harsh treatment of the body and forbidding marriage sounds like the Jewish Essenes.

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

Harsh treatment of the body and forbidding marriage? Where ever it came from, we know it was taught by Pythagoras and Plato and was condemned by Paul. Therefore these ideas have no place in Christianity. Also, the article on docetae in newadvent is interesting in relation to docetism and gnosticism.

 

[annem]

I have Jesus and the bible and am just a Christian, neither Catholic nor Protestant. And I also have an atheist ministry on youtube. I cannot be a Catholic because of the many gnostic and docetic elements that were absorbed unwittingly by some ECF’s.

---

If you have an atheist ‘ministry’ on youtube…well, that certainly explains why you don’t know much about reading scripture. I was puzzled when you didn’t understand about how to read Matthew and the ‘be perfect’ quote. Anyone familiar with scripture would understand right away that the comment was the summation.

And the church fought against the early heresies. And all the heresies of today. We’re always fighting against vast tides of heretics. And we always win.

I don’t expect you to agree with this.

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

 

[LionHeart777]

I have Jesus and the bible and am just a Christian, neither Catholic nor Protestant.

I’m going to come at this from another angle and hopefully not derail the thread. It was something I was thinking about…

regarding your quote above Daniel,

doesn’t that put you in a peculiar spot?

where are you assembling then?

where or with whom do you take communion?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I’m going to come at this from another angle and hopefully not derail the thread. It was something I was thinking about…

regarding your quote above Daniel,

doesn’t that put you in a peculiar spot?

where are you assembling then?

where or with whom do you take communion?

I take communion every Sunday with a group like minded who are just Christians. Thanks for asking.

 

[annem]

-Harsh treatment of the body and forbidding marriage? Where ever it came from, we know it was taught by Pythagoras and Plato and was condemned by Paul. Therefore these ideas have no place in Christianity. Also, the article on docetae in newadvent is interesting in relation to docetism and gnosticism.

There was a long tradition in Judaism of celibacy, clearly seen in the f Nazarites and Essenes, not to mention the ritual periods of celibacy. An obvious historical background. Why on earth you imagine the early Christians, who were all Jews, would want to swipe dogma from the gentiles, I cannot imagine. What, Judaism didn’t have a plethora or obscure prophecies, baffling but fascinating sacred texts, and enough convoluted intellectual arguments to base a new religion on? Or twenty?

Then you have Christ, saying in a grand summation to be perfect as the Father is perfect before he sacrifices his life for us. And we have Christ saying that it is good to be a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom. And telling his followers to take up their crosses and follow him. And sure enough, his followers are promptly persecuted.

Then you have Paul. Paul is clearly in favor of celibacy, since he was celibate. And for heaven’s sake, look what he did to his body for Christ–the unending work, the times he was scourged–and nearly died because of it–the times he went to prison. And then finally beheaded by the always charming Romans. This isn’t suffering for the sake of the kingdom just as Christ suffered?

I am baffled by what basis you claim celibacy and suffering have no part in Christianity. Please explain,

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

 

[diggerdomer]

There was a long tradition in Judaism of celibacy, clearly seen in the f Nazarites and Essenes, not to mention the ritual periods of celibacy. An obvious historical background. Why on earth you imagine the early Christians, who were all Jews, would want to swipe dogma from the gentiles, I cannot imagine. What, Judaism didn’t have a plethora or obscure prophecies, baffling but fascinating sacred texts, and enough convoluted intellectual arguments to base a new religion on? Or twenty?

Then you have Christ, saying in a grand summation to be perfect as the Father is perfect before he sacrifices his life for us. And we have Christ saying that it is good to be a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom. And telling his followers to take up their crosses and follow him. And sure enough, his followers are promptly persecuted.

Then you have Paul. Paul is clearly in favor of celibacy, since he was celibate. And for heaven’s sake, look what he did to his body for Christ–the unending work, the times he was scourged–and nearly died because of it–the times he went to prison. And then finally beheaded by the always charming Romans. This isn’t suffering for the sake of the kingdom just as Christ suffered?

I am baffled by what basis you claim celibacy and suffering have no part in Christianity. Please explain,

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

The Jewish traditions you refer to were the exceptions, not the rule. “Be fruitful and multiply.”

The quote you cite from Jesus about eunuchs and the kingdom is irrelevant.

Paul may or may not have been married, we have no way of knowing.

 

[annem]

The Jewish traditions you refer to were the exceptions, not the rule. “Be fruitful and multiply.”

Of course. But they were there, weren’t they?

The quote you cite from Jesus about eunuchs and the kingdom is irrelevant.

Perhaps you haven’t read all the comments in this thread. We were discussing celibacy and the early church, so not only is the statement about eunuchs to the point, but it also disproves Daniel’s thesis.

Paul may or may not have been married, we have no way of knowing.

And perhaps little green men arrived from the moon yesterday. We have no way of knowing. Oh, come on, are you kidding?

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

 

[diggerdomer]

Of course. But they were there, weren’t they?

Perhaps you haven’t read all the comments in this thread. We were discussing celibacy and the early church, so not only is the statement about eunuchs to the point, but it also disproves Daniel’s thesis.

And perhaps little green men arrived from the moon yesterday. We have no way of knowing. Oh, come on, are you kidding?

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

Yes, “they” were there, but the simple existence does not provide the convincing argument you seem to propose.

I have read all the comments. If you think Jesus’ few (minor) remarks that metaphorically relate eunuchs to the kingdom of God is somehow determinative for celibacy or indicative of holiness based on celibacy, well…all I can say is God bless you. If that’s the situation you are of course free to believe and live accordingly, but it’s simply not required for the Catholic faith by the Church

I have no idea what you’re referring to about little green men. I am referring to Scripture and St. Paul. If you have something relevant to share I’ll look forward to it.