Gnostic Elements in Early Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Daniel_Keeran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mlchance said:
Yet another thread whose OP is predicated entirely on a post hoc fallacy.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
Of course, I am not drawing conclusion solely on the order of events but rather on very specific ideas found in gnosticism and also in early Catholicism but NOT in the deposit of faith.
 
Daniel_Keeran said:
Of course, I am not drawing conclusion solely on the order of events but rather on very specific ideas found in gnosticism and also in early Catholicism but NOT in the deposit of faith.
Click to expand...
Ah. I’d forgotten about bolstering the post hoc fallacy with the circular argument. Mea culpa maxima.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
mlchance said:
Ah. I’d forgotten about bolstering the post hoc fallacy with the circular argument. Mea culpa maxima.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
The evidence of a detailed pattern of thought and ideas from gnosticism, skipping over the “deposit of faith” and landing in the ECF’s, speaks for itself.
 
Daniel_Keeran said:
Gnosticism and docetism were pervasive in Roman society and contributed to the development of a gnostic form of Christianity that looked similar to orthodox biblical Christianity.
  1. The idea of the material physical world being evil was an extension of the biblical idea of the created world being fallen. Gnostic Christianity were strongest in North Africa, especially Egypt, and Syria.
Click to expand...
This is exact opposite of Catholicism, which believes in a sacramental weltanschauung, and which rejects the notion that the material universe is evil.
  1. The most influential school of thought was centered in Alexandria where Tertullian, Clement of A. (Pantaeus was his teacher who travelled to India), Origen (Ambrose was his patron), Cyprian, and Augustine (former Gnostic Manichean) emerged.
Click to expand...
So, Augustine rejected his former Manichean views. And also, when was he ever a Gnostic? I remember he was an Manichean, but a Gnostic?
  1. Asceticism was central to gnostic life in which Marcion founded celibate congregations in Syria. Monasticism, ascetic celibate life, first emerged in the Egyptian desert. As the [C]hurch developed a hierarchy, its members and priests, were drawn from ascetic orders.
Click to expand...
So, what’s your point?
  1. The gnostic trinity was Father, Mother, and Son, in which God has a female consort.
Click to expand...
Citation, please.
Then we find Athanasius of Alexandria first describing Mary as ever-Virgin, and in gnostic writing Mary is queen of angels.
Click to expand...
Citation, please.
In Catholicism, Mary is the consort or spouse of God, and so for Joseph to have intimate relations with her after Jesus’ birth would be considered adultery.
Click to expand...
No, that’s not true, it has nothing to do with adultery. The reason Mary is ever-virginal is because her body was totally dedicated as a temple to God. It was reserved for God, a holy of holies that must be left for God alone and not men. Mary was the gate by which God entered the world, and no one can transverse the gate which God Himself came from.
 
Daniel Keeran, I’m curious as to why you asked me if I had a Catholic family member (or something along those lines.)

What contains the original DOF in your opinion?

would you see it as the NT?
 
Matariel said:
This is exact opposite of Catholicism, which believes in a sacramental weltanschauung, and which rejects the notion that the material universe is evil.

So, Augustine rejected his former Manichean views. And also, when was he ever a Gnostic? I remember he was an Manichean, but a Gnostic?

So, what’s your point?

Citation, please.

Citation, please.

No, that’s not true, it has nothing to do with adultery. The reason Mary is ever-virginal is because her body was totally dedicated as a temple to God. It was reserved for God, a holy of holies that must be left for God alone and not men. Mary was the gate by which God entered the world, and no one can transverse the gate which God Himself came from.
Click to expand...
Gnosticism and docetism were pervasive in Roman society and contributed to the
development of a gnostic form of Christianity that looked similar to orthodox
biblical Christianity.
  1. The idea of the material physical world being evil was an extension of the
    biblical idea of the created world being fallen. Gnostic Christianity were
    strongest in North Africa, especially Egypt, and Syria.
    “This is exact opposite of Catholicism, which believes in a sacramental
    weltanschauung, and which rejects the notion that the material universe is evil.”
    REPLY: Since the material world is evil (gnostic), the spirit is contaminated in conception when it takes on flesh (Origen, “Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin…” Homilies on Leviticus 8:3).
Quote:
2. The most influential school of thought was centered in Alexandria where
Tertullian, Clement of A. (Pantaeus was his teacher who travelled to India),
Origen (Ambrose was his patron), Cyprian, and Augustine (former Gnostic
Manichean) emerged.
“So, Augustine rejected his former Manichean views. And also, when was he ever a
Gnostic? I remember he was an Manichean, but a Gnostic?”
REPLY: Yes, Augustine was a Manichaen, a strict gnostic sect, who converted to Christianity in 387 after Theodosius issued a death sentence for Manichaeans in 382 - wikipedia.

Quote:
3. Asceticism was central to gnostic life in which Marcion founded celibate
congregations in Syria. Monasticism, ascetic celibate life, first emerged in the
Egyptian desert. As the [C]hurch developed a hierarchy, its members and priests,
were drawn from ascetic orders.
“So, what’s your point?”
REPLY: Monasticism and the celibate clergy originated with Egyptian and Syrian gnosticism.

Quote:
7. The gnostic trinity was Father, Mother, and Son, in which God has a female
consort.
“Citation, please.”
REPLY: The Nag Hammadi Library, The Gospel of the Egyptians,Translated by Alexander Bohlig and Frederik Wisse

Quote:
Then we find Athanasius of Alexandria first describing Mary as ever-Virgin, and
in gnostic writing Mary is queen of angels.
“Citation, please.”
REPLY:
  1. “ever-virgin” Athanasius, Orations against the Arians,II:70(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:386-387
  2. correction, wisdom is mother of the angels, "Behold, I have revealed to you the name of the Perfect One, the whole will of the Mother of the Holy Angels…” Sophia of Jesus Christ in Gnostic Library.
    “As for the Wisdom who is called ‘the barren,’ she is the mother of the angels.” Gospel according to Philip.
    “Then there came forth from that place the great power of the great light Plesithea, the mother of the angels, the mother of the lights, the glorious mother, the virgin with the four breasts.” Gospel of the Egyptians.
    “The Queen of Heaven is a title not only for the aspect of Sophia represented in the Blessed Virgin Mary… She is both Earth’s Mother and Heaven’s Queen” MEDITATIONS A Homily for Easter Sunday by Rev. Steven Marshall
Quote:
In Catholicism, Mary is the consort or spouse of God, and so for Joseph to have
intimate relations with her after Jesus’ birth would be considered adultery.

“No, that’s not true, it has nothing to do with adultery. The reason Mary is
ever-virginal is because her body was totally dedicated as a temple to God. It
was reserved for God, a holy of holies that must be left for God alone and not
men. Mary was the gate by which God entered the world, and no one can transverse
the gate which God Himself came from.”
REPLY: This is still a gnostic idea, thinking a married woman engaging in sexual union cannot be a “temple to God” “a holy of holies” and the extension that because God came through Mary she cannot be “transversed” by sexual union with a human male, her own husband. The idea she is “left for God alone” is gnostic-like theology, God having a female consort. Other Catholics have said it would be adultery for Joseph to have sex with her. I don’t know the official Catholic teaching on this point.
 
Daniel_Keeran said:
Other Catholics have said it would be adultery for Joseph to have sex with her. I don’t know the official Catholic teaching on this point.
Click to expand...
On the presupposition of the practise of living in a virgin marriage etc. being Gnostic know that none of this is exclusive in anyway to gnostics. These concepts were also seen in the Essenes, the Manichæans and other remote cultures ( priests of the Mosquito Islands and of ancient Mexico and Buddhist or Taoist).

We can assume that Joseph was given first hand knowledge from Mary about her encounter with the angel’s revelation and would not have dared to consumate relations with Mary under these extraordinary conditions. The fact that Joseph stayed with Mary when she was “with child” against ALL social mores of the time tells us Joseph believed the accounts and must have been willing to live as “brother and sister” in a custodian relationship. Owing to the fact that the Jews were long expecting their messiah and there were in fact other fairly recent false claims it would have been very reasonable to assume that Joseph knew that Jesus was the promised Messiah very soon after Mary conveyed that she was with child. He would have put it all together and would not have dared to approach Mary intimately and probably felt an enormous burden as well as privileged to be in the role he was as Mary’s protector and provider.

Although it is not explicitly conveyed, given the importance of Joseph’s role we can probably also assume that Joseph was given dreams or explicit visitations or confirming signs that he was to be Mary’s protector and not to enjoin marriage rights at an intimate level.

James
 
CentralFLJames said:
On the presupposition of the practise of living in a virgin marriage etc. being Gnostic know that none of this is exclusive in anyway to gnostics. These concepts were also seen in the Essenes, the Manichæans and other remote cultures ( priests of the Mosquito Islands and of ancient Mexico and Buddhist or Taoist).

We can assume that Joseph was given first hand knowledge from Mary about her encounter with the angel’s revelation and would not have dared to consumate relations with Mary under these extraordinary conditions. The fact that Joseph stayed with Mary when she was “with child” against ALL social mores of the time tells us Joseph believed the accounts and must have been willing to live as “brother and sister” in a custodian relationship. Owing to the fact that the Jews were long expecting their messiah and there were in fact other fairly recent false claims it would have been very reasonable to assume that Joseph knew that Jesus was the promised Messiah very soon after Mary conveyed that she was with child. He would have put it all together and would not have dared to approach Mary intimately and probably felt an enormous burden as well as privileged to be in the role he was as Mary’s protector and provider.

Although it is not explicitly conveyed, given the importance of Joseph’s role we can probably also assume that Joseph was given dreams or explicit visitations or confirming signs that he was to be Mary’s protector and not to enjoin marriage rights at an intimate level.

James
Click to expand...
Sorry, hombre, but these are speculations and assumptions. You are also defending Catholic practice on the basis that pagans do it, too. Usually you do much better than this.

More widely, the earliest attack on the Church at a philosophical level was the gnostic attack. Portions of the NT, such as 1 John, were specifically written to refute it. There was a plethora of gnostic literature out there.

Aside from saying that the Catholic Church has the teaching authority and the guardianship to promote and defend the deposit of faith, what razor will you use to separate the gnostic influence from that in the DOF?
 
Truthstalker said:
Sorry, hombre, but these are speculations and assumptions. You are also defending Catholic practice on the basis that pagans do it, too. Usually you do much better than this.

More widely, the earliest attack on the Church at a philosophical level was the gnostic attack. Portions of the NT, such as 1 John, were specifically written to refute it. There was a plethora of gnostic literature out there.

Aside from saying that the Catholic Church has the teaching authority and the guardianship to promote and defend the deposit of faith, what razor will you use to separate the gnostic influence from that in the DOF?
Click to expand...
The burden of proof is of course on the OP author to present cause and effect evidence.
But there is no such evidence - just speculation. I was exchanging counter-speculation in kind to emphasize the futility of projecting conjectures from scanty evidence.

At this point its probably sufficient to say “show us the direct evidence” and let the OP die here.

As an aside I might add that I can’t imagine the apostles and the early fathers dieing for gnostic ideas. The apostles knew Jesus in ther person. Where there any gnostic martyrs?

The OP author is not challenging the historicity of Jesus too is he?

James
 
CentralFLJames said:
The burden of proof is of course on the OP author to present cause and effect evidence.
But there is no such evidence - just speculation. I was exchanging counter-speculation in kind to emphasize the futility of projecting conjectures from scanty evidence.

At this point its probably sufficient to say “show us the direct evidence” and let the OP die here.

As an aside I might add that I can’t imagine the apostles and the early fathers dieing for gnostic ideas. The apostles knew Jesus in ther person. Where there any gnostic martyrs?

The OP author is not challenging the historicity of Jesus too is he?

James
Click to expand...
What kind of evidence would convince you? Alexandria was a hotbed of gnosticism. Ambrose, Origen, and Augustine were either former gnostics or in the case of Origen condemned for his gnosticism. The ECF’s teach many gnostic things not found in the DOF as I listed in the OP. Of course the ECF’s died as martyrs, and they died unwittingly teaching gnostic ideas. Again, define what you mean by “direct evidence” other than what has been provided.
 
Daniel_Keeran said:
What kind of evidence would convince you? Alexandria was a hotbed of gnosticism. Ambrose, Origen, and Augustine were either former gnostics or in the case of Origen condemned for his gnosticism. The ECF’s teach many gnostic things not found in the DOF as I listed in the OP. Of course the ECF’s died as martyrs, and they died unwittingly teaching gnostic ideas. Again, define what you mean by “direct evidence” other than what has been provided.
Click to expand...
The kind of evidence that would convince would be convincing evidence. Sorry for the tautology. There do seem to be some logical gaps.

There is bubblegum on the sidewalk of Washington D.C.
They make laws in D.C.
Therefore our laws are infected with bubblegum.

Somehow there are logical gaps and dots to be connected. I am not sure what they are, and I am seeking some clarification as to the befuddlement. There was a DOF. You are claiming it to be infected, or the inheritance to be infected (I am not sure which) with gnostic influences. Again, what is your razor to separate the DOF from gnostic influences? There were sinners in Jerusalem; does that mean Jesus taught sin? Of course not.
 
CentralFLJames said:
. Where there any gnostic martyrs?
Click to expand...
I think there were. People have died for communism, for Naziism, for all sorts of erroneous beliefs. It is only logical to assume there were some who died for gnosticism. The Romans killed many people and were not particular, as long as you didn’t worship Caeser (unless you were Jewish) you were in for it.
 
Truthstalker said:
The kind of evidence that would convince would be convincing evidence. Sorry for the tautology. There do seem to be some logical gaps.

There is bubblegum on the sidewalk of Washington D.C.
They make laws in D.C.
Therefore our laws are infected with bubblegum.

Somehow there are logical gaps and dots to be connected. I am not sure what they are, and I am seeking some clarification as to the befuddlement. There was a DOF. You are claiming it to be infected, or the inheritance to be infected (I am not sure which) with gnostic influences. Again, what is your razor to separate the DOF from gnostic influences? There were sinners in Jerusalem; does that mean Jesus taught sin? Of course not.
Click to expand...
I invite you to go back and read my earlier statements. I DID NOT say there was gnosticism in the DOF but rather in the ECF’s. The very ideas I listed in the OP are linked between gnosticism and the ECF’s, not between gnosticism and the DOF. I do not know how to make it any clearer.

Here is the logic:

Distinctly gnostic ideas are found in extant gnostic literature contemporary with the ECF’s.
There are no distinctly gnostic ideas found in the DOF.
There are distinctly gnostic ideas found in the ECF’s.
Therefore, the ECF’s accepted some distinctly gnostic ideas found only in contemporary gnostic (and some pagan) literature.
 
LionHeart777 said:
what are you saying is the DOF?
Click to expand...
Your asking this question has been informative. Previously I had thought it referred only to sacred scripture, but now I think in the Catholic definition it includes “sacred tradition.”

What I am saying is that the Sacred Scripture (SS) has no gnostic elements while sacred tradition (ST) contains numerous points of gnostic ideas.

Thanks for asking this. It helped me to clarify my understanding. But please correct me if I am still mistaken.
 
no, I was just trying to figure out what you were using as the DOF…that’s cool.

not trying to trap you anymore;) (sorry again.)

I was just tryng to calrify.

a couple of things do come to mind tough, regarding SS and this conversation.

there is the passage of St. Paul’s in 1 Corinthians 3:15, and his statement in one of his Epistles about those baptised for the dead (or something like that.) I’m not sure what each passage means but I know of a Catholic interpretation that I’ve read on that Corinthians passage and that it refers to purgatory goes back at least to around the 6th Century (I know that probably doesn’t do much for you, as this post dates even the ECF’s.)

I don’t know what these passages mean honestly? but, they do have me thinking
 
Daniel_Keeran said:
Does it mean people were baptized vicariously for people who died (as Mormons say) and were in an afterlife waiting place? Or do the words “for the sake of” mean something else, like “looking toward” or “in preparation” for being dead?

I’ll do more research on this.
Click to expand...
Yes - this was an early heresy of “proxied” baptisms for the dead by their living relatives and friends and was put down. The Church have never taught that proxied or vicarious baptisms are valid. What we do admit though is that God being timeless and omniscient can hear our prayers in the eternity of “now” just as if they were spoken in the time before the deceased person died. The hope is that our prayers for mercy said in a state of grace might be credited to the deceased at God’s discretion to grant a final saving grace on their death bed. Nothing of course is guaranteed but Catholics are now coming more into a deeper hope in God’s Mercy in the face of so much blatant modern day sin (see my Divine Mercy Chaplet signature link) that often infects our very own families and friends. It is of course the anguish of imagining a loved one in hell that led the early heretics to take up the proxy-baptism thing. The Mormons are doing the same thing to pacify the fears of new converts about the fate of their deceased family members. Ironically though the Mormons do not even use a Trinitarian formula nor believe in the Triune God and have some strange ideas that even those deceased who are sent to what they call “the outer darkness” (closest to the idea of Christian hell) can eventually climb/work their way out and ascend to the next level of heaven. :rolleyes: But I digress…

James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top