Gnostic Elements in Early Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Daniel_Keeran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
also, some one correct me if I’m wrong…isn’t the oil symbolic of the anointing of the Holy Spirit in Chrismation/Confirmation , and isn’t this similar to the laying on of hands we see in Acts?

thanks,

Nick

p.s. Daniel, I know you have a lot to get to but still waiting for exegesis on the Psalm I mentioned
 
Daniel_Keeran said:
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.
Click to expand...
Do you believe even half of the baloney you are putting out in here for real?
Good gracious - I have never heard such naked anti-Catholic arrogance and unsubstantiated conjecture to imagine that Catholics are all shot full of Gnosticism but
the bible that has the same elements you subscribe to Gnostics is sacrosanct and
escapes it.

You need to remember that it was the Catholic Church who constructed the bible and come to realize that since the Church produced the bible if Catholics were under Gnostic influence it would have put in some of the Gnostic scriptures.

And to equate celibacy and chastity with Gnosticism just doesn’t hold water. I suppose if Catholic priests married you would then turn right around and claim they were pagan since pagans had sexual relationships and Christ didn’t? :rolleyes:

Jesus was celibate and he was not Gnostic. Catholics have always claimed that Jesus and the Virgin Mary are the inspiration for the Catholic teaching on morality and celibacy consistent with one’s station in life. If you want to say that’s Gnostic then I say that’s just arbitrary and a reflection of your own desires or bias. You can’t call Catholics Gnostic without also calling scripture Gnostic to some degree.

James
 
Actually it’s fairly certain he has never read Hebrews or Revelation, the Pentateuch, nor the prophets and definitely never understood them.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
Truthstalker said:
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…
Click to expand...
In James, the anointing with oil is not to do with the Holy Spirit but with healing.
Chrismation in relation to baptism is not in scripture, but is in gnosticism and catholicism.
 
Nicene said:
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
Click to expand...
Yes but this is not about the use of oil as the Holy Spirit in relation to baptism. If so, there is no mention or example given of it.
 
LionHeart777 said:
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
Click to expand...
We do know that anointing with oil to receive the Holy Spirit following baptism was not stolen from scripture. The gnostics give the most meaningful explanation of anointing with oil in relation to baptism and the Holy Spirit, then we see it in the ECF’s.
 
  1. You need to remember that it was the Catholic Church who constructed the bible and come to realize that since the Church produced the bible if Catholics were under Gnostic influence it would have put in some of the Gnostic scriptures.
    REPLY: In most cases the ECF’s incorporated gnostic ideas unintentionally or at most in an attempt to co-opt the gnostics.
  2. And to equate celibacy and chastity with Gnosticism just doesn’t hold water. I suppose if Catholic priests married you would then turn right around and claim they were pagan since pagans had sexual relationships and Christ didn’t?
    REPLY: It is the fact that marriage is forbidden to priests and bishops, in contrast to the biblical prescription requiring marriage and children, that I say it must come from gnostic influence.
  3. Jesus was celibate and he was not Gnostic. Catholics have always claimed that Jesus and the Virgin Mary are the inspiration for the Catholic teaching on morality and celibacy consistent with one’s station in life. If you want to say that’s Gnostic then I say that’s just arbitrary and a reflection of your own desires or bias. You can’t call Catholics Gnostic without also calling scripture Gnostic to some degree.
    REPLY: Jesus became poor and humbled himself to death on a cross, so marriage would have been outside his divine mission. Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesus’ birth, and Catholic insistence to the contrary can best be understood as gnostic influence.
 
Any time you call on the name of the Lord there is power associated with what you are doing. Of course most people don’t believe that today and probably why his name is bandied about as a curse so much.

Exo 30:22 Moreover, the LORD said to Moses,
22 “Take the finest spices: of liquid myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet-smelling cinnamon half as much, that is, two hundred and fifty, and of aromatic cane two hundred and fifty,
24 and of cassia five hundred, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, and of olive oil a hin;
25 and you shall make of these a sacred anointing oil blended as by the perfumer; a holy anointing oil it shall be.
26 And you shall anoint with it the tent of meeting and the ark of the testimony,
27 and the table and all its utensils, and the lampstand and its utensils, and the altar of incense,
28 and the altar of burnt offering with all its utensils and the laver and its base;
29 you shall consecrate them, that they may be most holy; whatever touches them will become holy.
30 And you shall anoint Aaron and his sons, and consecrate them, that they may serve me as priests.
31 And you shall say to the people of Israel, `This shall be my holy anointing oil throughout your generations.
32 It shall not be poured upon the bodies of ordinary men, and you shall make no other like it in composition; it is holy, and it shall be holy to you.
33 Whoever compounds any like it or whoever puts any of it on an outsider shall be cut off from his people.’”

Jesus was both baptized and anointed with oil in the NT, he also received myrrh. Holy oil was used to anoint the High Priest and the tabernacle. Holy oil was also used to anoint the Kings of Israel. Christs actual name means anointed.

Christians partake in Christs Prophetic, Kingly and Priestly offices as being part of His body. As well the Holy oil, as seen above, was used to anoint the Levitical priests.

From where did the gnostics copy this do you think? The Church from the gnostics, or the other way around. Personally I already know the answer.

The typology is all there if you have an eye to see, however as John says, not everything was written down. Thank the Lord we are not bible alone.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
Daniel_Keeran said:
  1. You need to remember that it was the Catholic Church who constructed the bible and come to realize that since the Church produced the bible if Catholics were under Gnostic influence it would have put in some of the Gnostic scriptures.
    REPLY: In most cases the ECF’s incorporated gnostic ideas unintentionally or at most in an attempt to co-opt the gnostics.
  2. And to equate celibacy and chastity with Gnosticism just doesn’t hold water. I suppose if Catholic priests married you would then turn right around and claim they were pagan since pagans had sexual relationships and Christ didn’t?
    REPLY: It is the fact that marriage is forbidden to priests and bishops, in contrast to the biblical prescription requiring marriage and children, that I say it must come from gnostic influence.
  3. Jesus was celibate and he was not Gnostic. Catholics have always claimed that Jesus and the Virgin Mary are the inspiration for the Catholic teaching on morality and celibacy consistent with one’s station in life. If you want to say that’s Gnostic then I say that’s just arbitrary and a reflection of your own desires or bias. You can’t call Catholics Gnostic without also calling scripture Gnostic to some degree.
    REPLY: Jesus became poor and humbled himself to death on a cross, so marriage would have been outside his divine mission. Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesus’ birth, and Catholic insistence to the contrary can best be understood as gnostic influence.
Click to expand...
The irony is that you base this all on speculation and the theory of bible alone (which is unbiblical by the way) Worse is you attempt to interpret sacred scripture on your own which the bible expressly forbids. However if you want to tackle the guarantee of the Holy Spirit guiding the church in the New Testament, fell free. But the interesting part is, if you question the veracity of that, then one must question the whether Jesus truly is the Messiah since he couldn’t even keep that promise which he guaranteed and the NT says the church has and is.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
Daniel_Keeran said:
I am wanting to broaden the idea of gnostic influence beyond simply purgatory. If an idea is found in gnostic thought but not in scripture, then emerges in the ECF’s, it is reasonable to conclude a gnostic rather than a biblical source for the idea found in the ECF’s.

On the other hand, if an idea is found in gnostic thought, biblical thought, and also in the ECF’s, it is reasonable to conclude that a truth was providentially transmitted through BOTH gnostic and biblical sources.
Click to expand...
Actually its just called bad science. Or Post hoc ergo propter hoc…

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
isn’t the oil symbolic of the anointing of the Holy Spirit in Chrismation/Confirmation
Click to expand...
I think I might be mistaken… I retract that
 
Nicene said:
Any time you call on the name of the Lord there is power associated with what you are doing. Of course most people don’t believe that today and probably why his name is bandied about as a curse so much.

Exo 30:22 Moreover, the LORD said to Moses,
22 “Take the finest spices: of liquid myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet-smelling cinnamon half as much, that is, two hundred and fifty, and of aromatic cane two hundred and fifty,
24 and of cassia five hundred, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, and of olive oil a hin;
25 and you shall make of these a sacred anointing oil blended as by the perfumer; a holy anointing oil it shall be.
26 And you shall anoint with it the tent of meeting and the ark of the testimony,
27 and the table and all its utensils, and the lampstand and its utensils, and the altar of incense,
28 and the altar of burnt offering with all its utensils and the laver and its base;
29 you shall consecrate them, that they may be most holy; whatever touches them will become holy.
30 And you shall anoint Aaron and his sons, and consecrate them, that they may serve me as priests.
31 And you shall say to the people of Israel, `This shall be my holy anointing oil throughout your generations.
32 It shall not be poured upon the bodies of ordinary men, and you shall make no other like it in composition; it is holy, and it shall be holy to you.
33 Whoever compounds any like it or whoever puts any of it on an outsider shall be cut off from his people.’”

Jesus was both baptized and anointed with oil in the NT, he also received myrrh. Holy oil was used to anoint the High Priest and the tabernacle. Holy oil was also used to anoint the Kings of Israel. Christs actual name means anointed.

Christians partake in Christs Prophetic, Kingly and Priestly offices as being part of His body. As well the Holy oil, as seen above, was used to anoint the Levitical priests.

From where did the gnostics copy this do you think? The Church from the gnostics, or the other way around.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
Click to expand...
Gnostics were very familiar with the OT and probably borrowed elements to develop their baptismal liturgy, but my statement holds true that although found in gnostic ritual and in early Catholic ritual, there is no biblical case of anointing with oil following a baptism.
 
My conclusions although arrived at independently, are shared by many scholars who study the emergence of monasticism and the influence of gnosticism.

“The Word in the Desert: Scripture and the Quest for Holiness in Early Christian Monasticism” by Douglas Burton-Christie; Oxford University Press, 1993, pp.37-38.

"The plausibility of gnosticism’s influence upon early monasticism has derived in large part from the claim that Egyptian Christianity was itself heavily gnostic. There has been, until recently, a virtual consensus among scholars concerning the gnostic character of early Egyptian Christianity. Adolf Harnack’s description of Egyptian Christianity is typical: “There was a local gospel, described by Clement of Alexandria and others as ‘the gospel according to the Egyptians.’ . . . The heretical asceticism and modalism which characterize it throw a peculiar light upon the idiosyncrasies of early Egyptian Christianity. Originally, it was used not merely by actually heretical parties, who retained it ever afterwards, but also by Egyptian Christians in general. . . .” H. I. Bell concurs in this assessment, arguing that early Egyptian Christianity was steeped in gnosticism: “One of the most persistent of the heresies influenced by Egyptian ideas was Gnosticism, which was widespread in the ancient world but was particularly associated with Egypt. . . . [T]he Egyptian church was deeply affected by Gnosticism.” Robert Grant contends that the gnostic influence in Egypt was pervasive: “In the second century, as far as our knowledge goes, Christianity in Egypt was almost exclusively heterodox.” This alleged gnostic influence has been used to explain both why we know so little about the early Egyptian church and why monasticism eventually took off so strongly in Egypt. It has been suggested that because the Egyptian church was so overrun by gnosticism, “the earlier chapters of the Church’s history were intentionally forgotten.” This all-pervasive gnostic presence in Egyptian Christianity has also been used to explain the emergence of monasticism in Egypt: “The implied condemnation of the sex relationship suggests the encratite or ascetic tendency, so common in gnosticism, which . . . characterized the early Egyptian Church and which was later to inspire the monastic movement.” Most of the direct evidence we have linking monasticism to gnosticism comes from Pachomian monasticism in upper Egypt. It has been argued that the Pachomian community, with its close proximity to Nag Hammadi, was especially open to gnostic influences. The monastic attitude toward nonChristian literature has been described as “loose” and inclusive, opening the way to the inclusion of all kinds of influences: “[T]o the first monks, it seems, any guide to heaven and the vision of God was as good as another. It did not matter if the text was pagan, Christian or heretical, so long as it suited their piety and their aims.” However, there is evidence to suggest that such a picture of easy convergence between gnosticism and monasticism, as appealing as it may be, is open to serious question.

While gnosticism may indeed have left some mark upon Egyptian Christianity and upon early monasticism, evidence from recent scholarship suggests that the relationship between gnosticism and Egyptian Christianity was much more complex than has previously been imagined. C. H. Roberts, in particular, has challenged some of the earlier assumptions about the relationship between them, arguing that gnosticism, far from being a pervasive influence with early Egyptian Christianity, more likely existed alongside Christianity. Evidence from the papyri suggests that there were diverse centers of production of various kinds of literature, with gnostic groups working concurrently with orthodox centers."
 
Every Religion, or religious sect has a part of the truth…

Atheist can be good people and christians can be bad people…

If being a member of a certain group made you all the sudden better then others it would be more noticable and more would be drawn to it… instead of away from it.

Now before Christ God chose the Jewish people to be his own… They murdered and killed in the name of God… who is suppose to be the same loving God of Christianity…

As a sign of the covenant to the Jewish people the Jewish men had to be circumsized…

Pagans at that time practiced Circumsision also… it wasn’t only the Jews that took part in that practice.

Difference was that the Jews did it for the abrahamic God while the Pagans did it for their own reasons or gods. Pre-Chrisitanity Pagans = non-jews Post-Chrisitanity Pagans = non-Christians.

When Christianity spread it spread through out all the pagan lands and cultures. It transformed these cultures from worshiping pagan gods to focusing all worship on Jesus Christ. This is why we have Christmas Trees and many other practices that have pagan links or actions but they are all focused on Christ and are thus not pagan anymore.

So is praying to the dead a pagan practice… um nope it is not… because the prayers for the dead are directed to Jesus Christ to have mercy on those that have died.

Are prayers to the Saints pagan practice? …um nope they are not… because anyone who is a member of the body of Christ (his church) when they die are still alive in Christ and still a part of his church but in heaven.

Just as we can ask one another, who are part of the church on earth, to pray for us. We can rest asure that we can ask those in heaven to pray for us.

So Gnostics are not a part of the church they are sects that have broken off to a multitude of extremes. With the main reasons of I WILL NOT SERVE, I WORSHIP GOD IN MY OWN WAY, RELIGION IS A BURDEN ON ME, I DONT NEED ANYONE OR ANYTHING BETWEEN ME AND CHRIST!

All these I, I, I, Me, Me, Me reasons always reflect on our selfish nature as human beings. But as more people relize that the Chruch is Christ, the more they will want to turn away from sin and serve others before themselves.
 
To be honest from my study of many of these ancient writings it was the gnostics who borrowed from Christianity not the other way around in the majority of their teachings. Are there similarities yes but there are great differences as well and concerning these differences the early church fathers throughout the early history of the church combated these differences and fought to keep them out of our teachings.

Also just because two religions have similar teachings does not mean that they have a similare origin to these teachings.

Of course you have these so called historians trying to rewrite history by making incrediably bold claims without a shread of evidence all the time. Just because someone is a historian does not make him right.
 
Concerning confirmation the anointing of oil after the laying of hands is more likely jewish influence than a gnostic one. In jewish tradition the use of holy oil as a symbol of giving the receipient special graces to carry out a ministry is as old as the old testament. Anointing is used throughout the Old Testament. Priests, kings, and prophets were anointed. In my opinion the use of the anointing of the oil during the confirmation most probably came from the jewish influences out of the church in Jerusalem. Christian Gnostics just followed suit. The whole idea of gnosticism was to look and act as much like whatever they were trying to supplaint to make their beliefs seem to be the natural progression that the religion should go whether it was pagan, Jewish or Christian.
 
ERose said:
Concerning confirmation the anointing of oil after the laying of hands is more likely jewish influence than a gnostic one. In jewish tradition the use of holy oil as a symbol of giving the receipient special graces to carry out a ministry is as old as the old testament. Anointing is used throughout the Old Testament. Priests, kings, and prophets were anointed. In my opinion the use of the anointing of the oil during the confirmation most probably came from the jewish influences out of the church in Jerusalem. Christian Gnostics just followed suit. The whole idea of gnosticism was to look and act as much like whatever they were trying to supplaint to make their beliefs seem to be the natural progression that the religion should go whether it was pagan, Jewish or Christian.
Click to expand...
Yes there were influences from several sources impacting early Christianity and some are recorded in scripture such as Judaism, Gnosticism, then paganism, Roman imperialism, Platonism and neo-Platonism. There was Jewish Ebionite influence in the pseudo-Clementine literature.

The question regarding chrism oil following baptism, is whether or not it is described in the sacred scripture. If not, then its use by gnostics could have been drawn from the OT but its combination with baptism was either invented by them or borrowed from other Christians who also invented the practice drawing perhaps from the OT use of oil anointing.
 
ERose said:
To be honest from my study of many of these ancient writings it was the gnostics who borrowed from Christianity not the other way around in the majority of their teachings. Are there similarities yes but there are great differences as well and concerning these differences the early church fathers throughout the early history of the church combated these differences and fought to keep them out of our teachings.

Also just because two religions have similar teachings does not mean that they have a similare origin to these teachings.

Of course you have these so called historians trying to rewrite history by making incrediably bold claims without a shread of evidence all the time. Just because someone is a historian does not make him right.
Click to expand...
Yes, the process may have gone something like this: gnostics borrowed ideas from christianity and judaism as well as paganism to form different strains of gnostic christianity which them cross-fertilized with biblical christianity to form early catholicism. Then with the contribution of imperial Rome in basilicas, orans ritual, processions, and baptism of the military, we then see imperial Catholicism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top