Gnostic Elements in Early Catholicism

[annem]

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

Daniel believes Catholic celibacy came from the Gnostics. I was arguing against that position. I certainly was not trying to argue against God’s commandment to be fruitful and multiply.

s. 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 am sorry if I have said something wrong–did you think I meant all Catholics must live celibate lives? No, of course not. Hey, I’m married! Daniel, who is apparently very opposed to celibacy, insists that the church is wrong to ask for celibacy for those who are called to be priests or nuns. However, he has very little background in scripture and early Christian beliefs.

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.

Wow, I seem to have been way too flip here. Sorry, sorry! Look, here is St Paul himself about his own celibacy:
1 Corinthians, Chap. 7- “Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband… But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. For I would that all men were even as myself [unmarried]: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I…

You are, however, correct that it is possible that St Paul could have been married much earlier. Jewish young men and women tended to marry very early indeed by our standards. It is possible St Paul had a wife, and that she died, perhaps in childbirth, a common enough happenstance then.

Nevertheless, because of St Paul’s clear remark about being unmarried, it has always been taken as a given that he was celibate at least during the period after his conversion.

Have I cleared things up? Sorry if I was flip or wrote in a confusing manner,

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

 

[diggerdomer]

1 Corinthians, Chap. 7.

Nevertheless, because of St Paul’s clear remark about being unmarried, it has always been taken as a given that he was celibate at least during the period after his conversion.

St. Paul’s remark was clear…yes…to this ONE community at this ONE time.

This does not mean it’s a binding/authoritative dogma/doctrine for all times, peoples and ages.

Sure, it is extremely likely that he was celibate at the time he wrote this one letter to this one community. And, it’s almost as likely he remained celibate following this letter.

This in no way means he was preaching celibacy as a preferred state in life, for all peoples and all times.

 

[LionHeart777]

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

sorry again, I was setting you up. I’ll leave what I was getting at for another thread.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Daniel believes Catholic celibacy came from the Gnostics. I was arguing against that position.
Daniel, who is apparently very opposed to celibacy, insists that the church is wrong to ask for celibacy for those who are called to be priests or nuns.

1 Corinthians, Chap. 7- “Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband… But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. For I would that all men were even as myself [unmarried]: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I…

Paul is speaking of celibacy as recommended for anyone who has a “gift” for celibacy, certainly not for priests or nuns. The 1 Cor.7 passage is addressed to all Christians, not for church leaders or anyone desiring to be more holy. This is the nature of docetism/gnosticism: a way of appearing to be reflect Christian/Pauline teaching but missing the mark.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

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.

Of course there was celibacy in the New Testament church. They, including the eunuchs for the kingdom’s sake, were those who had a “gift” but this did not make them superior or more holy than those who were married. Gnosticism/docetism taught celibacy was a superior, more holy way of life.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Why on earth you imagine the early Christians, who were all Jews, would want to swipe dogma from the gentiles, I cannot imagine.

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,

Your views accurately reflect a definite gnostic/docetic idea in Catholicism.

1. Paul and Jesus refer to celibacy as a gift (biblical), not a superior or more holy way, and certainly not a condition of leadership in the church (gnostic/docetic).
2. Certainly all Christians are to strive for perfection and holiness by walking in the light (1 John 1 (biblical), but escetic celibate life is not the biblical path (gnostic/docetic).
3. Suffering in the patient endurance of persecution is biblical, but deliberate self-infliction of suffering in ascetic celibate contemplative life in order to achieve holiness/perfection is (gnostic/docetic).

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

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.

The Matthew passage is definitely referring to being perfect as love for enemies just as the father in heaven sends rain and sun on both the just and unjust. Are you a pacifist, annem, or do you believe killing one’s enemy can be justified?

I have published much on biblical topics, and my youtube atheist outreach is a small part of my diverse interests.

 

[annem]

Your views accurately reflect a definite gnostic/docetic idea in Catholicism.

1. Paul and Jesus refer to celibacy as a gift (biblical), not a superior or more holy way, and certainly not a condition of leadership in the church (gnostic/docetic).

No, they reflect the ongoing tradition and belief of the Catholic church. Saying that Paul and Jesus do not call this superior is splitting hairs. Both Jesus and Paul were very clear that celibacy for the sake of the church was good. And of course we believe the cross of Christ is what we are to take up.

1. Certainly all Christians are to strive for perfection and holiness by walking in the light (1 John 1 (biblical), but escetic celibate life is not the biblical path (gnostic/docetic).

Christians are told to be perfect as the Father is perfect. Jesus said this in the famous summation in Matthew. Both Christ and Paul were celibate. How is it you cannot believe Christians derived their belief in the value of celibacy from Christ and Paul then? Why posit a Gnostic influence a hundred years later at the earliest?

1. Suffering in the patient endurance of persecution is biblical, but deliberate self-infliction of suffering in ascetic celibate contemplative life in order to achieve holiness/perfection is (gnostic/docetic).

Sorry, once again I am afraid you are not fully examining the evidence. Christ said to take up your cross. Christians were being persecuted from the very first day. They were giving up the occupations, money, and frequently, their lives in order to live out that command in the first days after Christ died. Paul, when he was Saul, actively persecuted Christians, even those who had fled to other cities.

Christianity was a persecuted religion from the first. So, clearly, Christians expected to suffer for Christ from day one. How much easier, not to mention safer, to remain a Jew or a pagan.

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

 

[annem]

The Matthew passage is definitely referring to being perfect as love for enemies just as the father in heaven sends rain and sun on both the just and unjust. Are you a pacifist, annem, or do you believe killing one’s enemy can be justified?

Sorry, but that is not the consensus of the early church fathers, or pretty much anybody else. Certainly it is not how it has been read for the last 2,000 years,’

However, clearly, you have not read an explanation of how to read this passage. Would you like me to show you? It will take quite a lot of explaining. Or is this a side issue for you? You decide.

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

No, they reflect the ongoing tradition and belief of the Catholic church. Saying that Paul and Jesus do not call this superior is splitting hairs. Both Jesus and Paul were very clear that celibacy for the sake of the church was good. And of course we believe the cross of Christ is what we are to take up.

Christians are told to be perfect as the Father is perfect. Jesus said this in the famous summation in Matthew. Both Christ and Paul were celibate. How is it you cannot believe Christians derived their belief in the value of celibacy from Christ and Paul then? Why posit a Gnostic influence a hundred years later at the earliest?

Sorry, once again I am afraid you are not fully examining the evidence. Christ said to take up your cross. Christians were being persecuted from the very first day. They were giving up the occupations, money, and frequently, their lives in order to live out that command in the first days after Christ died. Paul, when he was Saul, actively persecuted Christians, even those who had fled to other cities.

Christianity was a persecuted religion from the first. So, clearly, Christians expected to suffer for Christ from day one. How much easier, not to mention safer, to remain a Jew or a pagan.

“No, they reflect the ongoing tradition and belief of the Catholic church. Saying that Paul and Jesus do not call this superior is splitting hairs. Both Jesus and Paul were very clear that celibacy for the sake of the church was good. And of course we believe the cross of Christ is what we are to take up.”
REPLY: Gnostic/docetic said it was superior, more holy to be ascetic celibate. Paul and Jesus clearly said celibacy is a GIFT, not a requirement to serve the church. All Christians are called to take up the cross but not to be celibate. Your view on this is docetic Catholic, not Christian.

“Christians are told to be perfect as the Father is perfect. Jesus said this in the famous summation in Matthew. Both Christ and Paul were celibate. How is it you cannot believe Christians derived their belief in the value of celibacy from Christ and Paul then? Why posit a Gnostic influence a hundred years later at the earliest?”
REPLY: It is at least a docetic influence. Read the Docetae article in newadvent catholic encyclopedia. The “be perfect” passage in Matthew is clearly about love for enemies.

“Sorry, once again I am afraid you are not fully examining the evidence. Christ said to take up your cross. Christians were being persecuted from the very first day. They were giving up the occupations, money, and frequently, their lives in order to live out that command in the first days after Christ died. Paul, when he was Saul, actively persecuted Christians, even those who had fled to other cities.”
REPLY: Willingness to suffer in persecution is for all Christians; this is not about self-inflicted suffering.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Sorry, but that is not the consensus of the early church fathers, or pretty much anybody else. Certainly it is not how it has been read for the last 2,000 years,’

However, clearly, you have not read an explanation of how to read this passage. Would you like me to show you? It will take quite a lot of explaining. Or is this a side issue for you? You decide.

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

The gnostic/docetists were skilled at reading their views into scripture. The passage in question is clearly referring to being perfect as your Father in heaven who gives rain and sun to both just and unjust; therefore love your enemies as He does.

 

[LionHeart777]

Paul and Jesus refer to celibacy as a gift (biblical), not a superior or more holy way, and certainly not a condition of leadership in the church (gnostic/docetic).

Daniel, I think that it is superior to married life in that one can be totally devoted to the Lord, rather than also having to be concerned with how to please one’s spouse. I think that was what St. Paul was teaching, just my opinion right now.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Daniel, I think that it is superior to married life in that one can be totally devoted to the Lord, rather than also having to be concerned with how to please one’s spouse. I think that was what St. Paul was teaching, just my opinion right now.

When one begins to elevate celibacy as more holy than married life, a docetic shift occurs that Paul did not intend. It is because of this tendency to read into Paul that he was referred to as “apostle of heretics” by Tertullian when addressing the gnostic Marcion.
Rather Paul was clear that celibacy is a “gift.”

1 Cor.7:7 “I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.” Never is celibacy described as a gift of the clergy or that the clergy must possess this gift. To make such a rule is docetism.

 

[annem]

LionHeart777

Daniel, I think that it is superior to married life in that one can be totally devoted to the Lord, rather than also having to be concerned with how to please one’s spouse. I think that was what St. Paul was teaching, just my opinion right now.

Thanks for the comment, which is correct.

When one begins to elevate celibacy as more holy than married life, a docetic shift occurs that Paul did not intend. It is because of this tendency to read into Paul that he was referred to as “apostle of heretics” by Tertullian when addressing the gnostic Marcion.
Rather Paul was clear that celibacy is a “gift.”

Yes, a wonderful gift that, if well done, will lead you to deeper prayer and greater service for other people. Daniel, why are you so upset that a celibate life is regarded as a cut above staying in the world? Why don’t you think that it is holier to spend four hours a day in prayer?

Also, I am not sure what you mean by a ‘docetic shift’. Docetists questioned the nature of Christ; I cannot understand how their beliefs had anything to do with celibacy.

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

 

[diggerdomer]

No, they reflect the ongoing tradition and belief of the Catholic church. Saying that Paul and Jesus do not call this superior is splitting hairs. Both Jesus and Paul were very clear that celibacy for the sake of the church was good. And of course we believe the cross of Christ is what we are to take up.

Christians are told to be perfect as the Father is perfect. Jesus said this in the famous summation in Matthew. Both Christ and Paul were celibate. How is it you cannot believe Christians derived their belief in the value of celibacy from Christ and Paul then? Why posit a Gnostic influence a hundred years later at the earliest?

Sorry, once again I am afraid you are not fully examining the evidence. Christ said to take up your cross. Christians were being persecuted from the very first day. They were giving up the occupations, money, and frequently, their lives in order to live out that command in the first days after Christ died. Paul, when he was Saul, actively persecuted Christians, even those who had fled to other cities.

Christianity was a persecuted religion from the first. So, clearly, Christians expected to suffer for Christ from day one. How much easier, not to mention safer, to remain a Jew or a pagan.

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

Annem,

Are you stating, or only implying, that you believe celibacy is a preferred or holier state in life to marriage, in the Christian tradition?

Neither Jesus nor Paul, in the New Testament, make such a claim–not to mention that the Magisterium of the Church makes no such claim-- but it seems to me that you do.

Please clarify.

Thank you.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Yes, a wonderful gift that, if well done, will lead you to deeper prayer and greater service for other people. Daniel, why are you so upset that a celibate life is regarded as a cut above staying in the world? Why don’t you think that it is holier to spend four hours a day in prayer?

Also, I am not sure what you mean by a ‘docetic shift’. Docetists questioned the nature of Christ; I cannot understand how their beliefs had anything to do with celibacy.

Docetists were dualists who had in common with Pythagoreans and Platonists that believed celibacy and asceticism and contemplation were superior, and so Paul condemned them for forbidding to marry. They wanted to distance from the physical world, and gnostics even invented an inferior god to create and rule the world. Your view is definitely docetic catholic because you believe married life is “staying in the world.” A faithful marriage devoted to service, raising children to love God, is a most holy life. Paul does not say a life of prayer and fasting is holier. Every moment in life is an opening to God, married or single, if one rests in the presence of God… another book.

 

[annem]

who had in common with Pythagoreans and Platonists that believed celibacy and .

Daniel, Here is the problem with relying on internet sites for your information. New Advent copied information that was published in 1909. That’s a HUNDRED years ago, and a huge number of archaeological and biblical studies books ago. Wikipedia relies on information from fringe writers like Doherty. No one with any knowledge of biblical studies would ever, ever believe what this non-scholar writes. Atheists may add the information, and insist it stays there. Nevertheless, Doherty is someone biblical scholars snigger at.

About understanding the New Testament: you have to understand how the authors thought and the world they belonged to. One of the many reasons no scholar any longer claims they find Hellenistic influence is because they have found the New Testament to be saturated, drenched, soaked in Old Testament references. In just about every other line. And they have shown that these references have important information about what the author meant. Oh, and they haven’t found a trace of Hellenistic influence.

To understand the way the Old Testament is used, you have to know what Paul means when he talks about types. You have to understand things like typology, inclusios, and you have to know when there is a pun in Aramaic or Greek and how it is used. And you certainly have to have knowledge of the history of the early church and what was happening. Simply saying “I don’t think Paul meant so and so” is not exactly a convincing argument.

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

 

[annem]

who had in common with Pythagoreans and Platonists that believed celibac

Daniel, Here is a quick summation of the last sixty or so years of biblical studies: E P Sanders started the great turnaround with “Paul and Palestinian Judaism”, which dragged the scholars away from question of Hellenistic influence with a truly important book on the importance of Second Temple Judaism on the New Testament.

Handy hint to discover who is, and is not, and important biblical scholar. Check how many times a book has been referenced by other famous scholars. With that fact in mind, “Judaism and Hellenism” by Martin Hengel is the most referenced book on the subject of Hellenism and Judaism.

Hengel sifts new evidence from archaeological sites of Second Temple Jews, especially those sites in Galilee. These sites show very clearly that the Second Temple Jews at the time rejected Hellenistic influence on their religious beliefs, and, in fact, because much more ardent, and even fanatical in their monotheism. All Hellenistic influence was in things that had nothing to do with religion.

Hengel also examines the evidence from Second Temple literature and finds the same pattern. And, after all, we are talking about a group of people who had a very bloody war with the Macabees , another bloody rebellion that led to the death of over a million Jews and the utter destruction of their temple in 70 Ad, followed shortly by the Bar Kokhba revolt.

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

 

[annem]

who had in common with Pythagoreans and Platonists that believed celibac

Daniel, Now, a second handy hint to figure out what book is considered especially important among biblical scholars: if it a true book of biblical scholarship, and yet it has been translated into different languages. Note that I said by a biblical scholar, someone who has a doctorate in biblical studies, knows koine Greek, Latin, Aramaic, knows ancient societies, etc. There are VERY few books that are translated that could be classified as books of biblical scholarship because they are expensive books and very, very few people read them. Yes, they are quite difficult books to read. Usually, you have to have a pretty fair background in the subject to understand them well.

With that in mind, Petrement’s book, “A Separate God” was first published in French and is, indeed, a very, very important book on Gnosticism.

Here are some of her arguments, which I will take from only the first few pages. (It’s well over 500 pages). It’s at least a taste so you can see how densely packed and complex her arguments are:
“If Paul had had knowledge of doctrines such as those supposed by Shmithals or L Shottroff, or those assumed by U Wilckens, would he not have attacked them more clearly…(Paul) attacks an attitude of pride and a refusal to believe in the resurrection of the dead; but nowhere does he attack any sort of conception of humanity” (p 7)

“In the thought of the Gnostics Christians who seem to have been the earliest, there is no clear distinction between faith and knowledge” p 8

“What is witnessed to in the New Testament are tendencies leading toward certain incomplete and inconclusive aspects of Gnosticism (p 9)

“No Gnostic test has been found that we can date with certainty, or even with a degree of probability, to a pre-Christian time (p 10)

“The collapse of the classical city was actually much earlier” (p 11)

“Where did the figure of the Savior come from….it is difficult to explain this figure other than by Christianity (p 12).

No point in going on. Surely you can see that if you are interested in early Christianity and the Gnostics, that you need a copy of her book.

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

“If Paul had had knowledge of doctrines such as those supposed by Shmithals or L Shottroff, or those assumed by U Wilckens, would he not have attacked them more clearly…(Paul) attacks an attitude of pride and a refusal to believe in the resurrection of the dead; but nowhere does he attack any sort of conception of humanity” (p 7)

“In the thought of the Gnostics Christians who seem to have been the earliest, there is no clear distinction between faith and knowledge” p 8

“**What is witnessed to in the New Testament are tendencies leading toward certain incomplete and inconclusive aspects of Gnosticism **(p 9)

Who then were those who engaged in the things Paul and John DO condemn? Paul and John indicate in the following verses that a false dualistic version of Christianity had emerged that emphasized asceticism in abstaining from the physical and harsh treatment of the physical body, a false humility, self-imposed worship, worship of angels, a false knowledge (gnosis), denied Christ had a physical body, and who forbade marriage.

These characteristics are more important to identify than the labels one wants to assign them: gnostic, docetic, etc. E.g. these false Christianities forbade marriage and taught celibacy is more holy than being married described by you as “staying in the world.”

Colossians 2:18,20-23 “Do not let anyone who delights in **false humility and the worship of angels **disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions…why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: ‘Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!’? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body…”

1 Timothy 4:3 “They **forbid people to marry **and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.”

1 Timothy 6:20 “Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith.”

Colossians 2:8-9 “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form…”

2 John 1:7 “Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.”

2 Corinthians 11:4-6 “For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those ‘super-apostles.’ I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge.”