Gnostic Elements in Early Catholicism

[Daniel_Keeran]

To re-calibrate this discussion I will re-post the OP here:

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.
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 gnosic Manichean) emerged.
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 church developed a hierarchy, its members and priests, were drawn from ascetic orders.
4. Origen was rejected because of gnostic-like ideas that human souls pre-existed and were sent into material bodies as punishment for previous sins. The idea of inherited corruption, stain, and contagion acquired when the soul enters a fleshly body, came out of Alexandrian fathers and had this in common with gnostic thought.
5. The notion of penance as required suffering or punishment for sin in order to achieve sanctification is related to the idea of sainthood, which in gnostic terms is represented by the psychics or the perfected ones.
6. The gnostic Pistis Sophia, with its detailed description of cleansing fire needed to become pure before entering heaven, was written by Valentinus before 150 AD and pre-dates all the church fathers comments on prayers for the dead and purgatory.
7. The gnostic trinity was Father, Mother, and Son, in which God has a female consort. Then we find Athanasius of Alexandria first describing Mary as ever-Virgin, and in gnostic writing Mary is queen of angels. 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.

 

[LionHeart777]

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.

where are the historical records of these “orthodox biblical” Christians, and why are there no protests from them recorded in history?

or do you believe the whole Church went astray until Luther protested?

where were the “pure” ones?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

where are the historical records of these “orthodox biblical” Christians, and why are there no protests from them recorded in history?

or do you believe the whole Church went astray until Luther protested?

where were the “pure” ones?

I do not think Luther represents orthodox bibilical christians. Unfortunately, violence characterized many who called themselves christians.

The orthodox biblical christians areferred to perhaps more in principle than as an identifiable group.

I will have more to say in another thread.

 

[LionHeart777]

I think asceticism and celibacy can be drawn from Scripture (i.e. Jesus instructions to the rich young ruler and Paul’s exhortation that it is better to remain as he was.)

although I’m not in agreement with his history of the Papacy (I believe he’s a Protestant), Bruce L. Shelley in his “Church History In Plain Language” (2nd edition),makes mention of the ascetic John the Baptist, and suggests that the teachings of “The Shephard of Hermas” contributed to the rise of monasticism (pg. 117-118.) (If I understand him correctly.)

perhaps “The Shaphard of Hermas” and John theBaptist were gnostically influenced by Pythagoras?

I don’t agree.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I think asceticism and celibacy can be drawn from Scripture (i.e. Jesus instructions to the rich young ruler and Paul’s exhortation that it is better to remain as he was.)

although I’m not in agreement with his history of the Papacy (I believe he’s a Protestant), Bruce L. Shelley in his “Church History In Plain Language” (2nd edition),makes mention of the ascetic John the Baptist, and suggests that the teachings of “The Shephard of Hermas” contributed to the rise of monasticism (pg. 117-118.) (If I understand him correctly.)

perhaps “The Shaphard of Hermas” and John theBaptist were gnostically influenced by Pythagoras?

I don’t agree.

John the Baptist was a prophet with Nazarite vows kind of like Samson. The Shepherd of Hermas was written as a kind of Christian novel, but I don’t see asceticism in it but maybe I’ll have to look again. Certainly a central theme of the messianic kingdom was distribution of wealth to the needy, and the church in Acts 2 appears to apply this emphasis. There was no monastic class of holier ones.

Paul said it is better to marry than to burn with desire and that the marriage bed is undefiled and to be held in honour. But the idea that original sin was transmitted by sexual intercourse may have given rise to monasticism and the background I think was gnosticism. Paul said that because of the present distress that ALL should remain unmarried as he was, but this had nothing to do with negative views of sexuality that certainly characterized Augustine, Origen, and others under gnostic influence.

Paul’s intention regarding remaining single was different than the above ECF’s:

1 Corinthians 7
29 What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

Paul was not an ascetic like pythagorean gnostics who were leading astray the early chrisians:

Colossians 2
18Do 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…20 …why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21"Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

1 Timothy 4
1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods

 

[CentralFLJames]

I forgot to unsubscribe as I said I would and got notification on this thread and saw your latest comments that I must respond to.
It is clear to me that you are using Gnosticism as a carte-blanch front to attack
Most all Catholic belief. Since you are now attacking monasticism I am going to rebut what you have said – this is an entirely different area of discussion.

Daniel_Keeran:

There was no monastic class of holier ones.

#1: This conclusion is faulty. The early Church was initially more concerned with just staying together to preserve “the Way” in the presence of withering persecution. They had no choice but to rely on each other in small close knit communities to survive and not be “part of the world”. In essence the early Church WAS in its own right its own small monastic class of “Christians” living together in holiness and faith with communal living and sharing.

…The idea that original sin was transmitted by sexual intercourse may have given rise to monasticism and the background I think was Gnosticism.

#2: Do you have anything more to offer than personal opinion, speculation and conjecture?

Paul’s intention regarding remaining single was different than the above ECF’s:

**#3:**You have no way of reading the minds of the ECF’s nor Paul’s and its careless to draw conclusions 2,000 years distant without having any personal insight into apostolic traditions and insights.

Paul was not an ascetic like pythagorean Gnostics who were leading astray the early Christians:

**#4 **Again you are making gross assumptions that early Christians were being mislead by Gnostics. You have no way to differentiate or identity either group and who remained true to each belief system.
#5: General Comments Rejecting Your Allusion to Monasticism as Being Gnostic.
If you are trying to imply or state that monasticism is un-Christian or is Gnostic I want to completely refute this. You can’t make that claim without completely tossing out the bible and Judaism and Christ’s very own teaching. It’s an utterly nonsensical idea…

In the OT Books of I and II Kings we hear of the “schools of the prophets” which were for young men attempting to study God’s Word and live their lives in emulation of the prophets in isolation. You might look into the history of Mt. Carmel and where the prophets came from…

It appears that Paul may have in fact taken a Nazarite vow (Acts 18:18), and apparently a few others in the New Testament may have as well (Acts 21:23-24).
Scriptural Evidence of Personal Devotional Vows to God to Become Holy?:

“…In Cenchrea he had his hair cut, for he was keeping a vow. – Acts 18.18

“Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.” – Acts 21:23-24

More evidence of Christian, not Gnostic influence about Monastic life and living in holiness may be seen in such passages as I John, ii, 15-17: "Love not the world, nor the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the charity of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life, which is not of the father but is of the world

In fact a perfect example of a middle age monk who wandered from village to village teaching Christians and giving moral support and encouragement in exchange for food and shelter is seen in the scripture: ‘…take your sandals only and walking cane’. This is almost exactly like a MONK!

NOTE: By the way, the founder of Protestantism, Luther was a (heretical) Catholic monk. Why would anyone reject Catholic monks as being Gnostic while at the same time embracing the renegade Catholic monks who taught them the new doctrine of sola-scriptura?

The truth is that the Christian ideal is frankly an ascetic one and monachism is simply the endeavor to effect a material realization of that ideal.

More rebuttals to your silly idea that monasticism and the Christian call to holiness is Gnostic. Only Satan or one of His thralls would dare to try to suggest that Christians are not all called to be Holy.
“But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.”" – 1 Peter1:15-16

If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven; and come follow Me (Matthew 19:21).*

In fact there is most assuredly different calls in life and some are called to commit themselves to a holy life that is completely separate from secular life. One only need remember what Jesus Christ said to Martha:
*
“Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things. But one thing is needed and Mary has chosen that good part which will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:41-42).*

[continued]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

[continued #5 from above]

Celibacy too is a special gift from God, given to a few:
*
“… not all men receive it, but they to whom it is given. He who is able to receive this call (to celibacy), let him receive it”. (Matthew 19: 10 – 12). *

Christ himself tells us that: *“when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Mark 12:25). * This clearly shows us that human relations will not be sexual any more in the kingdom. The New Testament thus praises celibacy as an anticipation of the ultimate “angelic” existence and Christ taught us that “the Kingdom was at hand” and to pray for it:

“Our Father Who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name, Thy Kingdome COME”. This means we should start living the kingdom NOW.

Christians have been called by Our Lord to live in the world without necessarily being of the world (John 17 13-16).

The New Testament praises celibates as they are anticipators of the life “angels” will have. “There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 19:12). John the Baptist, Paul and the “hundred and forty thousand” who are discussed in Revelation 14: 3-4, all served as examples to the many Orthodox saints who practiced celibacy to the Glory of God

Are these Christian Male Virgins all Gnostics?
These are those [144,000] who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. Revelations 14:4

How about St. Mary was she Gnostic too? Can’t you see how Virginity and Chastity is a major theme of Christianity? Why do you think the story of the prostitute and the adulteress being forgiven of their sins and made virgins again is in the bible???

It all begins with Mary the Virgin Mother of God and St. John the virgin Baptizer of the Lord – then the Lord Jesus Christ himself. Even St. Joseph by role of spouse to ever virgin Mary was chaste within marriage and living as brother and sister with Mary. The Orthodox Church‘s liturgical calendar is crammed full of saints filled with righteous celibates, virgin martyrs, and men and women who followed the monastic way in purity and holiness of life. Catholic saints are too!

Paul endorses celibacy for those who believe they are capable of it:
“But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (1 Corinthians 7: 3) It is primarily because of “sexual immorality” (1 Corinthians 7:2), that Paul provides the teaching about each man and each woman having a spouse and giving each other their conjugal rights: Let the husband render to his wife the affection due to her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. (1 Corinthians 7:3)Paul specifically clarifies: “But I say this as a concession not as a commandment” (1 Corinthians 7:6). He says he wishes all men were “… even as I myself (celibate), but each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that” (1 Corinthians 7:7). Paul concludes that he who marries does well: “… but he who does not give her in marriage does better” (1 Corinthians 7:38).

Matthew 16:24
“If any man will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me”.

Clearly celibacy and virginity are highly important teachings of Christianity and are NOT Gnostic influences.

James

 

[Nicene]

Gnostics believed in the individualism of a priesthood of believers:

The Aposalypse of Peter:

*They do business in my word And there shall be others of those who are outside our number who name themselves bishop and also deacon, as if they have received their authority from God. They bend themselves under the judgement of the leaders. These people are dry canals.
*
The Gospel of Philip: They believed Baptism to be a symbol:

The Chrism is superior to baptism for it is from the word Chrism that we have been called Christians, certainly not because of the word baptism. And it is because of this chrism that the christ has his name. For the father anointed the son and the son anointed the apostles and the apostles anointed us. He who has been anointed possess, the resurrection, the light, the cross

“Chrism” is the Holy Spirit

1. The gnostic trinity was Father, Mother, and Son, in which God has a female consort. Then we find Athanasius of Alexandria first describing Mary as ever-Virgin, and in gnostic writing Mary is queen of angels. 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.

You’d be wrong, It was Mary Magdeline:

The Gospel of Philip:

As for the Wisdom (The Holy Spirit) who is called “the barren”, she is the mother of the angels. And the companion of the [savior], Mary Magdalene. …] loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her him. “Why do you love her more than all of us?” The savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness they are no different from one another. When the light comes then he who sees the light and he is blind will remain in darkness

You’ll find similar in the Gospel of Mary Magdeline.

Mary his mother was actually considered evil along with all the rest of the material world. Jesus wasn’t born of Mary but was created and planted in her so he wouldn’t be evil. Similar to the protestant position. (Tripart tractate I believe)

But more curious is that your accusation and theology above is being drawn from Islam:

Koran: The Dinner Table:

5.116 And when Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah he will say: Glory be to Thee, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it; Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in Thy mind, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things.

And once again from the Gospel of Philip:

*Some say Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit. They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is a virgin who no power defiled, the powers defile themselves. And the lord would not have said “My father who is in heaven” unless he had had another father but he wold have said simply “My Father”
*
Rather intriguing that gnostic texts conform to the non catholic belief. You’ll also find the same on the eucharist. But I still find more intriguing that you hold the same faith as Islam.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

1. Gnostics believed in the individualism of a priesthood of believers:
   REPLY: Yes
2. They believed Baptism to be a symbol:
   REPLY: Yes and sometimes minimized the need of water and of full immersion, as in the Didache in which the eucharist also has no mention of the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood and bodily resurrection.
3. The Chrism is superior to baptism for it is from the word Chrism that we have been called Christians, certainly not because of the word baptism. And it is because of this chrism that the christ has his name. For the father anointed the son and the son anointed the apostles and the apostles anointed us. He who has been anointed possess, the resurrection, the light, the cross

“Chrism” is the Holy Spirit
REPLY: Yes, perhaps gnostic ritual is where the secret teaching of chrism oil came from. This is very interesting. Thanks for this reference.

1. The Gospel of Philip:

As for the Wisdom (The Holy Spirit) who is called “the barren”, she is the mother of the angels. And the companion of the [savior], Mary Magdalene. …] loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her him. “Why do you love her more than all of us?” The savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness they are no different from one another. When the light comes then he who sees the light and he is blind will remain in darkness

You’ll find similar in the Gospel of Mary Magdeline.

Mary his mother was actually considered evil along with all the rest of the material world. Jesus wasn’t born of Mary but was created and planted in her so he wouldn’t be evil. Similar to the protestant position. (Tripart tractate I believe)
REPLY: Mary has the same title in Catholicism that Wisdom had in gnostic thought: Mother of the Angels.

1. But more curious is that your accusation and theology above is being drawn from Islam:
   Rather intriguing that gnostic texts conform to the non catholic belief. You’ll also find the same on the eucharist. But I still find more intriguing that you hold the same faith as Islam.

REPLY: I believe Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born but that she had other children by Joseph. The idea of her perpetual virginity comes from the gnostic emphasis on celibacy. Origen first stated this idea, then Athanasius of Alexandria first coined the phrase “ever-virgin.” The teaching that priests and bishops are forbidden to marry, conforms to gnostic values rather than the biblical prescription that they should be married with children.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Re # 4 Catholicism developed the idea of immaculate conception of Mary to account for Jesus being born in a human being having original sin that would otherwise have been inherited by Jesus. Protestants accept that Mary had original sin so need to think Jesus was implanted. This is due to the gnostic idea that the sin of Adam is transmitted to all human beings by sexual intercourse, conception, and birth into evil flesh. This then is the gnostic connection between the Catholics and Protestants.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

#1: This conclusion is faulty. In essence the early Church WAS in its own right its own small monastic class of “Christians” living together in holiness and faith with communal living and sharing.
REPLY: The church in Acts was not celibate whereas the monastic movement was quite celibate beginning wiht the anchorite Anthony of Egypt.

**#3:**You have no way of reading the minds of the ECF’s nor Paul’s and its careless to draw conclusions 2,000 years distant without having any personal insight into apostolic traditions and insights.
REPLY: One does not have to read minds to understand what Paul is referring to in the forbid foods, forbid marriage, worship of angels, touch-not taste-not passages.

**#4 **Again you are making gross assumptions that early Christians were being mislead by Gnostics. You have no way to differentiate or identity either group and who remained true to each belief system.
REPLY: All one has to do is trace the ideas from gnosticism to Catholicism while skipping the sacred scripture.

#5: General Comments Rejecting Your Allusion to Monasticism as Being Gnostic.
In the OT Books of I and II Kings we hear of the “schools of the prophets” which were for young men attempting to study God’s Word and live their lives in emulation of the prophets in isolation.
REPLY: Were they celibate?

It appears that Paul may have in fact taken a Nazarite vow (Acts 18:18), and apparently a few others in the New Testament may have as well (Acts 21:23-24).
REPLY: This is conjecture, but perhaps John the Baptist was Nazarite.

More evidence of Christian, not Gnostic influence about Monastic life and living in holiness may be seen in such passages as I John, ii, 15-17: "Love not the world, nor the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the charity of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life, which is not of the father but is of the world
REPLY; You believe this teaches all Christians should be celibate, and this view is certainly gnostic: living in holiness equals celibate life.

In fact a perfect example of a middle age monk who wandered from village to village teaching Christians and giving moral support and encouragement in exchange for food and shelter is seen in the scripture: ‘…take your sandals only and walking cane’. This is almost exactly like a MONK!
REPLY: A celibate monk??

NOTE: By the way, the founder of Protestantism, Luther was a (heretical) Catholic monk. Why would anyone reject Catholic monks as being Gnostic while at the same time embracing the renegade Catholic monks who taught them the new doctrine of sola-scriptura?
REPLY: I do not embrace Luther

The truth is that the Christian ideal is frankly an ascetic one and monachism is simply the endeavor to effect a material realization of that ideal.
REPLY: “The Christian ideal is the ascetic one” is an extremely gnostic view, one that Pythagoras and his admirer Paulinus of Nola would certanly agree with.
’ Peripatetic for God and a Pythagorean as regards this world ’ (Letter to Jovius)
“But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.”" – 1 Peter1:15-16

If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven; and come follow Me (Matthew 19:21).*

In fact there is most assuredly different calls in life and some are called to commit themselves to a holy life that is completely separate from secular life. One only need remember what Jesus Christ said to Martha:
*
“Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things. But one thing is needed and Mary has chosen that good part which will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:41-42).*
REPLY: This is an gnostic use of these passages. Jesus meant for all to distribute wealth to the poor but this did not include celibacy. A subsistence lifestyle is not monastic whereas celibacy as a requirement of priest and bishop is a requirement of the gnostic orders.

 

[Nicene]

So in other words, you have adopted practice gnosticism via your own “Yes” responses.

With regard to Mary, there is no question you won’t give up that dogs bone when it concerns Mary Magdeline and not Mary even when it comes from the text itself. You’ll also need to address why your belief about Jesus Mother matches the gnostics, which you almost seemed to have evaded, as well as the Koran. But the main point of it is established, you made a false claim and don’t know what you are talking about as proven by the very text itself. It’s backpedaling. However it is pretty clear you haven’t read any of the gnostic texts. Here is some suggested reading before you make any more errors concerning their beliefs:

The apocryphon of James 1 and 2
The Treatise on the Resurrection
The Gospel of Truth
The Tripart Tractate
The apocryphon of John
The Gospel of Thomas
The Gospel of Philip
The Hypostasis of the Archons
The Apocalypse of Adam
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve
The Thunder, Perfect Mind
The Apocalypse of Peter
The teachings of Silvanus
The Apocalypse of Paul
Authoritative teaching
Melchizedek
The Testimony of Truth

That should get you started, there are about a dozen more. However another mistake you made is that they do indeed quote sacred scripture. In fact they do. Off the top of my head. Matthew, Colosians, 1 Corinthians, Mark, John, Hebrews,

it might help to know the material before you make inuendo and false accusations. However, as noted above, non catholic faith is, via the quotes provided, 100% drawing it’s belief from gnosticism and not the bible. You’ll also find they believed in the “age of consent or reason” because infants can’t come to knowledge (gnosis) obviously. I think you’ll be very very surprised how very much you have in common and have borrowed from them.

Another glaring omission is why you didn’t address that your belief exactly matches the Koran; another borrowed belief.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Celibacy too is a special gift from God, given to a few:
*
“… not all men receive it, but they to whom it is given. He who is able to receive this call (to celibacy), let him receive it”. (Matthew 19: 10 – 12). *
REPLY: So one does not have to be celibate to be truly holy.

Christ himself tells us that: *“when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Mark 12:25). * This clearly shows us that human relations will not be sexual any more in the kingdom. The New Testament thus praises celibacy as an anticipation of the ultimate “angelic” existence and Christ taught us that “the Kingdom was at hand” and to pray for it:

“Our Father Who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name, Thy Kingdome COME”. This means we should start living the kingdom NOW.

The New Testament praises celibates as they are anticipators of the life “angels” will have. “There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 19:12). John the Baptist, Paul and the “hundred and forty thousand” who are discussed in Revelation 14: 3-4, all served as examples to the many Orthodox saints who practiced celibacy to the Glory of God
REPLY: This is a gnostic reading to say that because we will not be sexual in heaven, we should not be sexual now.

Are these Christian Male Virgins all Gnostics?
These are those [144,000] who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. Revelations 14:4
REPLY: Again a gnostic spin. Defiling selves with women is not about celibacy but about fornication/adultery.

How about St. Mary was she Gnostic too? Can’t you see how Virginity and Chastity is a major theme of Christianity?
REPLY: The virginity of Mary is proof Jesus is divine, of the Holy Spirit.

Why do you think the story of the prostitute and the adulteress being forgiven of their sins and made virgins again is in the bible???
REPLY: Forgiven yes but made virgins again?

It all begins with Mary the Virgin Mother of God and St. John the virgin Baptizer of the Lord – then the Lord Jesus Christ himself. Even St. Joseph by role of spouse to ever virgin Mary was chaste within marriage and living as brother and sister with Mary. The Orthodox Church‘s liturgical calendar is crammed full of saints filled with righteous celibates, virgin martyrs, and men and women who followed the monastic way in purity and holiness of life. Catholic saints are too!
REPLY: The idea of Mary as perpetual virgin began with Origen, then Athanasius first called her ever-virgin. This insistence is not biblical and makes sense only if one understands the gnostic value placed on celibacy as holy.

Paul endorses celibacy for those who believe they are capable of it:
“But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (1 Corinthians 7: 3) It is primarily because of “sexual immorality” (1 Corinthians 7:2), that Paul provides the teaching about each man and each woman having a spouse and giving each other their conjugal rights: Let the husband render to his wife the affection due to her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. (1 Corinthians 7:3)Paul specifically clarifies: “But I say this as a concession not as a commandment” (1 Corinthians 7:6). He says he wishes all men were “… even as I myself (celibate), but each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that” (1 Corinthians 7:7). Paul concludes that he who marries does well: “… but he who does not give her in marriage does better” (1 Corinthians 7:38).

Matthew 16:24
“If any man will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me”.
Clearly celibacy and virginity are highly important teachings of Christianity and are NOT Gnostic influences.
REPLY: Paul referred to the current troubles as a reason for remaining single. It is a gnostic use of Mt.16:24 to say celibacy is self-denial. This would mean self-denial is a gift not required of all.

 

[Truthstalker]

Re # 4 Catholicism developed the idea of immaculate conception of Mary to account for Jesus being born in a human being having original sin that would otherwise have been inherited by Jesus. Protestants accept that Mary had original sin so need to think Jesus was implanted. This is due to the gnostic idea that the sin of Adam is transmitted to all human beings by sexual intercourse, conception, and birth into evil flesh. This then is the gnostic connection between the Catholics and Protestants.

THIS Protestant, anyway, rejects your theory of implantation and the inference that Protestants follow it. Jesus is true Son of God and true Son of Man. He obtained His human nature from His mother but without inheriting original sin (which I reject as coming through intercourse - a better explanation is that it is genetic now), Whether there was a miracle at the immaculate conception of Mary or Jesus is moot for the present argument. God made flesh, God took on the attributes of humanity, flesh, and in Genesis God said it was good. As Jesus is without sin and His flesh is good, I find your speculation bizarre. You seem to be saddling the Church with a form of docetism. If your theory is correct, we would be advocating that Christ merely passed through Mary and His life and the cross and death, without actually taking on human flesh. That is fundamentally refuted by the Church. “Touch me,” He said to Thomas, and He also ate fish after His resurrection.

Catholics are almost pathologically obsessive about the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist - Christ there really, Christ there carnally - in the central ritual of their faith, repeated and affirmed umpteen zillion times around the world, in a way that puts to silence your theory.

If there are gnostic elements in early Catholicism, I would think their effects would be much more subtle. They are missing from the Mass, are they not?

 

[Nicene]

1. The Chrism is superior to baptism for it is from the word Chrism that we have been called Christians, certainly not because of the word baptism. And it is because of this chrism that the christ has his name. For the father anointed the son and the son anointed the apostles and the apostles anointed us. He who has been anointed possess, the resurrection, the light, the cross

“Chrism” is the Holy Spirit
REPLY: Yes, perhaps gnostic ritual is where the secret teaching of chrism oil came from. This is very interesting. Thanks for this reference.

Wow I didn’t think there was anything you wouldn’t coopt. Chrism is the Holy Spirit to them, not holy oil. You really really need to read them before you make up much more stuff. But I will say I am beyond doubt that you will intentionally misrepresent them anyway given what I have read so far.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

THIS Protestant, anyway, rejects your theory of implantation and the inference that Protestants follow it. Jesus is true Son of God and true Son of Man. He obtained His human nature from His mother but without inheriting original sin (which I reject as coming through intercourse - a better explanation is that it is genetic now), Whether there was a miracle at the immaculate conception of Mary or Jesus is moot for the present argument. God made flesh, God took on the attributes of humanity, flesh, and in Genesis God said it was good. As Jesus is without sin and His flesh is good, I find your speculation bizarre. You seem to be saddling the Church with a form of docetism. If your theory is correct, we would be advocating that Christ merely passed through Mary and His life and the cross and death, without actually taking on human flesh. That is fundamentally refuted by the Church. “Touch me,” He said to Thomas, and He also ate fish after His resurrection.

Catholics are almost pathologically obsessive about the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist - Christ there really, Christ there carnally - in the central ritual of their faith, repeated and affirmed umpteen zillion times around the world, in a way that puts to silence your theory.

If there are gnostic elements in early Catholicism, I would think their effects would be much more subtle. They are missing from the Mass, are they not?

Yes the mass in an over-reaction to gnostic thought. Catholicism is a mixture of biblical and gnostic ideas which are sometimes subtle. So it is not a simple thing to sort out. For example, one of the ECF’s thought Jesus did not have excrement. I can’t find the reference off hand.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Wow I didn’t think there was anything you wouldn’t coopt. Chrism is the Holy Spirit to them, not holy oil. You really really need to read them before you make up much more stuff. But I will say I am beyond doubt that you will intentionally misrepresent them anyway given what I have read so far.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Gospel of Philip: “However, it is from the olive tree that we got the chrism, and from the chrism, the resurrection.”

Orthodoxwiki: “Chrismation (sometimes called confirmation) is the holy mystery by which a baptized person is granted the gift of the Holy Spirit through anointing with oil.”

If in gnosticism the Holy Spirit is the chrism, in the gospel of Philip we see that the chrism is from the olive tree. In early Catholicism the Holy Spirit is given by chrism oil is it not?
Yet Basil of Cesarea admits this ritual in not found in sacred scripture but part of a secret teaching. The earliest mention of chrism as the Holy Spirit and from the olive tree is in gnostic literature and quickly became part of early Catholic baptismal liturgy mentioned by Tertullian and Hippolytus.

 

[Truthstalker]

Gospel of Philip: “However, it is from the olive tree that we got the chrism, and from the chrism, the resurrection.”

Orthodoxwiki: “Chrismation (sometimes called confirmation) is the holy mystery by which a baptized person is granted the gift of the Holy Spirit through anointing with oil.”

If in gnosticism the Holy Spirit is the chrism, in the gospel of Philip we see that the chrism is from the olive tree. In early Catholicism the Holy Spirit is given by chrism oil is it not?
Yet Basil of Cesarea admits this ritual in not found in sacred scripture but part of a secret teaching. The earliest mention of chrism as the Holy Spirit and from the olive tree is in gnostic literature and quickly became part of early Catholic baptismal liturgy mentioned by Tertullian and Hippolytus.

So…Samuel anointed Saul and David because he was gnostic? And there is the verse, I think in Isaiah or Jeremiah, about the anointing breaks the yoke, because gnostic influence crept in, and James mentions anointing because he was gnostic, and so forth?

I suppose you could take “gnostic elements in early Catholicism” as the starting point from which to define your worldview. Anything that deviates from it is an overreaction to it, and anything that correlates is confirmation. If so, your position cannot be argued with. It is impregnable.

Perhaps Basil of Caeserea hadn’t read the Scriptures…

 

[Nicene]

Chrism is called anointing in the NT. as in:

1 Jn 2:20] But you have been anointed (chrisma in Koine) by the Holy One, and you all know.

and:

1 Jn 2:27 but the anointing (chrisma) which you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that any one should teach you; as his anointing (chrisma) teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie, just as it has taught you, abide in him.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[LionHeart777]

besides, how do you know that the gnoctics didn’t steal the idea of anointing with oil?

to me they seem suspect, they tried to hijack Christianity.

as has been pointed out, anointing with oil is found in the NT as well as the OT