Gnostic Elements in Early Catholicism

[Justafool]

You avoid the points as you accused Truthstalker of doing. The fact is that Constantine was an Arian and the orthodox bishops like Athanasius and Marcellus were exiled. To say that Constantine bought the Church is a completely ignorant comment. It avoids the facts of reality for an agenda.

The very idea of gnosticism is that it was based on a secret knowledge.

“The designation Gnosticism, derived from the Greek gnostikos (one who has gnosis, or “secret knowledge”), is a term of modern scholarship. Evidence for the Gnostic phenomenon, found in the Church Fathers who opposed Gnostic teachings (Irenaeus, c. 185; Hippolytus, c. 230; Epiphanius, c. 375) and in the Gnostic writings themselves, reveals a diversity in theology, ethics, and ritual that defies strict classification. Yet Gnostic sects appear to have shared an emphasis on the redemptive power of esoteric knowledge, acquired not by learning or empirical observation but by divine revelation.” [From the Encyclopedia Britanica as quoted here HughesNet Satellite Internet | 1-855-782-4594 | Satellite Internet

]

Or there is this here

“Among the majority of the followers of the movement, ‘Gnosis’ was understood not as meaning ‘knowledge’ or ‘understanding’, in our sense of the word, but ‘revelation’. These little Gnostic sects and groups all lived in the conviction that they possessed a secret and mysterious knowledge, in no way accessible to those outside, which was not to be proved or propagated, but believed in by the initiated, and anxiously guarded as a secret. This knowledge of theirs was not based on reflection, on scientific inquiry and proof, but on revelation… [encyclopedia Britannica as quoted here An Overview of Gnosticism and the Bible ]

This is the very reason why St. Irenaeus (in AD 170) anchors the faith to the scriptures and to the Tradition handed down from the apostles and present in the apostolic Churches like that at Rome. He is arguing against the secret knowledge of the gnostics (gnosis means knowledge). It is through him and other early Christians that we know what the gnostics believed.

All of Christian thought is based on revealed truth. It too was secret till revealed.
If you hold it against Gnostics then you must also apply it to Christianity.
Christians still say that God works in mysterious ways. These are hidden ways.

I think this is just all humans saying, I don’t know to things that are still unknown.
The Gnosticism I know is more natural than a Christianity that relies on miracles for their beliefs. Note the humanity of the Gospel of Jesus. Kissing Marie. Human and natural.

You might remember as well that the Jesus of scripture would speak in parables to the masses and later explain what he was talking about in -secret- meetings with the apostles later. Secrets, secrets everywhere. life is good.

Regards
DL

 

[Justafool]

This is the very reason why St. Irenaeus (in AD 170) anchors the faith to the scriptures and to the Tradition handed down from the apostles and present in the apostolic Churches like that at Rome. He is arguing against the secret knowledge of the gnostics (gnosis means knowledge). It is through him and other early Christians that we know what the gnostics believed.

We would know more if the early Church had not burned scripture and killed.

Regards
DL

 

[CentralFLJames]

Your slave mentallity is showing. Sheep.
I see God’s plan is for you not change anything.

Told you I was a free goat.

Regards
DL

I don’t know any Catholics who feel like they are slaves. Quite the contrary within the Catholic Church we have an amazing breadth and depth of spirituality specialities knitted into the whole seamless fabric of Church Teaching. Would you call such these amazing saints and doctors of the church slaves??? :

St Ambrose, 340-397 (Pastoral Doctor)
2 St Jerome, 345-420 (Doctor of Biblical Science)
3 St Augustine, 354-430 (Doctor of Grace)
4 St Gregory the Great, 540-604 (Doctor of Hymnology)
5 St Athanasius, 295-373 (Doctor of Orthodoxy)
6 St Basil the Great, 330-379 (Doctor of Monasticism)
7 St Gregory Nazianzus, 330-390 (Doctor of Theologians)
8 St John Chrysostom, 345-407 (Doctor of Preachers)
9 St Ephraem, 306-373 (Doctor of Deacons and Poets)
10 St Hilary, 315-368 (Doctor of Christ’s Divinity)
11 St Cyril of Jerusalem, 315-387 (Doctor of Faith and against Heresy)
12 St Cyril of Alexandria, 376-444 (Doctor of the Incarnation)
13 St Leo the Great, 390-461 (Doctor of Doctrine)
14 St Peter Chrysologus, 400-450 (Doctor of Homilies)
15 St Isidore, 560-636 (Doctor of Education)
16 St Bede, the Venerable, 673-735 (Doctor of English History)
17 St John Damascene, 676-749 (The Icon or Image Doctor)
18 St Peter Damian, 1007-1072 (Doctor of Reform and Renewal)
19 St Anselm, 1033-1109 (Doctor of Scholasticism)
20 St Bernard of Clairvaux, 1090-1153 (Devotional and Eloquent Doctor)
21 St Anthony of Padua, 1195-1231 (Evangelical Doctor)
22 St Albert the Great, 1200-1280 (Doctor of Science)
23 St Bonaventure, 1217-1274 (Seraphic Doctor)
24 St Thomas Aquinas, 1225-1274 (Angelic Doctor)
25 St Catherine of Siena, 1347-1379 (Doctor of Unity)
26 St Teresa of Avila 1515-1582 (Doctor of Prayer)
27 St Peter Canisius, 1521-1597 (Doctor of Catechetical Studies)
28 St John of the Cross, 1542-1591 (Mystical Doctor)
29 St Robert Bellarmine, 1542-1621 (Doctor of Church State Relations)
30 St Lawrence of Brindisi, 1559-1622 (Doctor of Conversions and Missions)
31 St Francis de Sales, 1567-1622 (Doctor of Authors and the Press)
32 St Alphonsus Liguori, 1696-1787 (Morality and Marian Doctor)
33 St Therese of Lisieux, 1873-1897 (Doctor of Confidence and M

Sorry but you are not even in the same galaxy as these men and women intellectually or spiritually.
*
“I came that they (A)may have life, and have it abundantly.” John 10:10*

When you have something with more pedigree other than just mere opinion I will respond to you further. But right now you are just ranting…

James

 

[jimmy]

All of Christian thought is based on revealed truth. It too was secret till revealed.
If you hold it against Gnostics then you must also apply it to Christianity.
Christians still say that God works in mysterious ways. These are hidden ways.

I think this is just all humans saying, I don’t know to things that are still unknown.
The Gnosticism I know is more natural than a Christianity that relies on miracles for their beliefs. Note the humanity of the Gospel of Jesus. Kissing Marie. Human and natural.

You might remember as well that the Jesus of scripture would speak in parables to the masses and later explain what he was talking about in -secret- meetings with the apostles later. Secrets, secrets everywhere. life is good.

Regards
DL

The difference is that the revelation of Christ is present to all. You can have access to it and so can everyone else. Gnosticism on the other hand believed that the revelation was personal. Yes, there is a personal aspect of revelation in Christianity but the public revelation is the standard for all personal revelation.

Actually the gnostics were farther from natural reality than Christians. The majority of gnostics had a docetic Christology which rejected the fact of the incarnation. It rejected the humanity of Christ because the natural world was evil. Ghosticism is hostile to the natural world. The whole spirituality is based on emancipation from matter. Christianity on the other hand focused on the reality of Christ’s body. After all, orthodox Christianity says that Christ was both God and man.

Who says they were secrets? They are present for everyone to read. That is a great secret that somehow everyone can know if they want it.

 

[jimmy]

We would know more if the early Church had not burned scripture and killed.

Regards
DL

Maybe we would and maybe we wouldn’t. It is irrelevant though. We have what we have and that is what we must deal with. You must deal with the gnosticism as described by Irenaeus and other early Christians. Otherwise you are not dealing in reality. You are then suppressing the truth for a personal agenda. The fact is that the gnosticism that Irenaeus encounted was based on personal knowledge or revelation. This is why Irenaeus pointed to the scriptures as a foundation of truth and also pointed to the apostolic churches as holding to the tradition handed on by the apostles. He then traces the bishop of the Church of Rome back to the apostles to show the connection.

The Christian faith is accessable to all. That is the meaning of the word Catholic which was applied to the Church by Ignatius around 100 AD and then Irenaeus 60 years later. The word means ‘universal’ and points to the fact that all, without exception are called to the Church and all have an equal stand within it.

 

[Truthstalker]

There are things in plain sight that are still mysteries, whether we speak of women, or how bumblebees fly, or where bellybutton lint comes from. Mysteries are NOT necessarily hidden. In the Church, the word “sacramentum” is the word we get the word “sacrament” from. It is the Latin translation for the Greek word for “mystery.”

Christianity is the world’s best mystery religion. It is stuffed full of mystery. It is just that it is all out in the open. Just because it is plain and visible to sight does not mean it is within human comprehension. Some mysteries have been formalized now as the seven sacraments, all of which have a mysterious quality, yet all are open and in plain sight. In contrast, gnosticism is “hidden knowledge” which only a few believe. In it the physical world is bad and the spiritual is good. In contrast, the Christian God made the heavens and the earth and the animals and everything and pronounced it was good, way back in the beginning of Genesis. Matter is good in Christianity, bad in gnosticism. Mysteries are open to observation to all in Christianity, only seen by the few in gnosticism.

Jesus spoke in parables and then explained them to His disciples. We have His explanations in the Scripture, open to all.

If I get tired of trying to answer your wild, ignorant and unsubstantiated opinions, and stop responding, I certainly am not running away. There is just only so much time in a day, and I may find better uses for it.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Somehow I wasn’t receiving notifications and thought the thread had died only to find it is very much alive.

Here are some questions to refocus for any who wish to continue exploring:

1. What was the gnostic view of afterlife according to the Pistis Sophia and how does it compare with Catholic purgatory?
2. What was the gnostic idea of the pneumatic level of spirituality and how does it compare with the Catholic idea of sainthood?
3. What was the gnostic idea of Mother of the Angels and Virgin of Light in the Pistis Sophia and how does it compare with the Catholic idea of Mary?
4. What was the gnostic view of the value and purpose of asceticism and celibacy and how does it compare with the Catholic view of asceticism and celibacy?
5. What was the gnostic idea of the human body as stained and how does it compare with the Catholic idea of the human body as stained?
6. What is the earliest known reference to chrism oil in relation to baptism, Catholic or gnostic?
7. What is the earliest reference to couples’ adopting celibacy in marriage?

I discovered the following detailed teaching on remaining celibate in marriage in the Acts of Thomas, sec.11-15 (200-225 AD):

“And the Lord sat down upon the bed and bade them also sit upon chairs, and began to say unto them: Remember, my children, what my brother (Thomas) spake unto you and what he delivered before you: and know this, that if ye abstain from this FOUL INTERCOURSE, ye become holy temples, pure, being quit of impulses and pains, seen and unseen, and ye will acquire no cares of life or of children, whose end is destruction: and if indeed ye get many children, for their sakes ye become grasping and covetous, stripping orphans and overreaching widows, and by so doing subject yourselves to grievous punishments. For the more part of children become useless oppressed of devils, some openly and some invisibly, for they become either lunatic or half withered or blind or deaf or dumb or paralytic or foolish; and if they be sound, again they will be vain, doing useless or abominable acts, for they will be caught either in adultery or murder or theft or fornication, and by all these vvill ye be afflicted.
But if ye be persuaded and keep your souls chaste before God, there will come unto you living children whom these blemishes touch not, and ye shall be without care, leading a tranquil life without grief or anxiety, looking to receive that incorruptible and true marriage, and ye shall be therein groomsmen entering into that bride-chamber which is full of immortality and light.
And when the young people heard these things, they believed the Lord and gave themselves up unto him, and abstained from foul desire and continued so, passing the night in that place. And the Lord departed from before them, saying thus: The grace of the Lord shall be with you.
And when the morning was come the king came to meet them and furnished a table and brought it in before the BRIDEGROOM AND THE BRIDE. And he found them sitting over against each other and the face of the bride he found unveiled, and the bridegroom was right joyful.
And the mother came unto the bride and said: Why sittest thou so, child, and art not ashamed, but art as if thou hadst lived with thine husband a long season? And her father said: Because of thy great love toward thine husband dost thou not even veil thyself?
And the bride answered and said: Verily, father, I am in great love, and I pray my Lord that the love which I have perceived this night may abide with me, and I will ask for that husband of whom I have learned to-day: and therefore I will no more veil myself, because the mirror (veil) of shame is removed from me; and therefore am I no more ashamed or abashed, because the deed of shame and confusion is departed far from me; and that I am not confounded, it is because my astonishment hath not continued with me; and that I am in cheerfulness and joy, it is because the day of my joy hath not been troubled; and that I have set at nought this husband and this marriage that passeth away from before mine eyes, it is because I am joined in another marriage; and that I have had NO INTERCOURSE WITH A HUSBAND THAT IS TEMPORAL, whereof the end is with lasciviousness and bitterness of soul, it is because I am yoked unto a true husband.
And while the bride was saying yet more than this, the bridegroom answered and said: I give thee thanks, O Lord, that hast been proclaimed by the stranger, and found in us; who hast removed me far from corruption and sown life in me; who hast rid me of this disease that is hard to be healed and cured and abideth for ever, and hast implanted sober health in me…”

 

[Justafool]

The difference is that the revelation of Christ is present to all. You can have access to it and so can everyone else. Gnosticism on the other hand believed that the revelation was personal. Yes, there is a personal aspect of revelation in Christianity but the public revelation is the standard for all personal revelation.

Actually the gnostics were farther from natural reality than Christians. The majority of gnostics had a docetic Christology which rejected the fact of the incarnation. It rejected the humanity of Christ because the natural world was evil. Ghosticism is hostile to the natural world. The whole spirituality is based on emancipation from matter. Christianity on the other hand focused on the reality of Christ’s body. After all, orthodox Christianity says that Christ was both God and man.

Who says they were secrets? They are present for everyone to read. That is a great secret that somehow everyone can know if they want it.

“emancipation from matter”

Jesus himself said that to follow we must -hate our mother and fathers and all material works- or some such. Same as the Gnostics so again using that against them is silly.

Gnostics, like Christians had hot, medium and cold believers. Literalists and non.

They though that miracles were untrue because they went against nature and physics as we know it today. They thought that if Jesus was God then after the resurrection he would have stayed --the time of the end is at hand-- and guided mankind instead of leaving evil here and taking a holiday.

Seems logical to me.

Their claim to fame as it were was using the same scripture and giving it a different interpretation and then trying to glean some real meaning from it. They, and the Church both complained that some read white while the other read white.

A good example was the fall of Eve. Christians did not think it a good thing while Gnostics thought that man, without the moral sense that eating of the tree gave, would have been the evil thing.

God agreed with the Gnostics on this or obviously God’s will would have been thwarted and that is impossible.

That is why we enjoy moral sense today.

Regards
DL

 

[Truthstalker]

Daniel,

Have you read over the thread?

You might also look at the one I started on Augustine’s view of marriage.

Justafool,

There is no reason to answer you. These are just your unpersuasive opinions and you refuse to substantiate them. You continue to state new ones while ignoring what people have pointed out about what is wrong with what you have posted so far. If you continue like this, people will just ignore you. I don’t think you want that.

 

[Justafool]

Maybe we would and maybe we wouldn’t. It is irrelevant though. We have what we have and that is what we must deal with. You must deal with the gnosticism as described by Irenaeus and other early Christians. Otherwise you are not dealing in reality. You are then suppressing the truth for a personal agenda. The fact is that the gnosticism that Irenaeus encounted was based on personal knowledge or revelation. This is why Irenaeus pointed to the scriptures as a foundation of truth and also pointed to the apostolic churches as holding to the tradition handed on by the apostles. He then traces the bishop of the Church of Rome back to the apostles to show the connection.

The Christian faith is accessable to all. That is the meaning of the word Catholic which was applied to the Church by Ignatius around 100 AD and then Irenaeus 60 years later. The word means ‘universal’ and points to the fact that all, without exception are called to the Church and all have an equal stand within it.

Only if we want to stand behind a Jesus scapegoat and add weight to the cross instead of doing the moral thing of helping him carry it.

vicarious redemption is immoral. God rejected it from Jesus and should or would reject it again if it came about toady.
Proof of this is in the fact that sin and evil still exists.

If God would have accepted it then they would not. God does not do half measures. If He were to forgive sin at all then he would forgive all sin and close the gates of an empty hell forever.

The God I know has done so but most do not as yet know him.

Regards
DL

 

[Justafool]

There are things in plain sight that are still mysteries, whether we speak of women, or how bumblebees fly, or where bellybutton lint comes from. Mysteries are NOT necessarily hidden. In the Church, the word “sacramentum” is the word we get the word “sacrament” from. It is the Latin translation for the Greek word for “mystery.”

Christianity is the world’s best mystery religion. It is stuffed full of mystery. It is just that it is all out in the open. Just because it is plain and visible to sight does not mean it is within human comprehension. Some mysteries have been formalized now as the seven sacraments, all of which have a mysterious quality, yet all are open and in plain sight. In contrast, gnosticism is “hidden knowledge” which only a few believe. In it the physical world is bad and the spiritual is good. In contrast, the Christian God made the heavens and the earth and the animals and everything and pronounced it was good, way back in the beginning of Genesis. Matter is good in Christianity, bad in gnosticism. Mysteries are open to observation to all in Christianity, only seen by the few in gnosticism.

Jesus spoke in parables and then explained them to His disciples. We have His explanations in the Scripture, open to all.

If I get tired of trying to answer your wild, ignorant and unsubstantiated opinions, and stop responding, I certainly am not running away. There is just only so much time in a day, and I may find better uses for it.

You look at two identical beliefs and say they are different. Strange.

" In it the physical world is bad"

If I look at this I have to wonder if you are speaking to Gnostic beliefs or Christian ones.

Some Gnostics look about and see evil.
Some, like myself, look about and see perfection in evolution.

Genesis has God cursing the earth. Christians should then see evil.

What do you see? God’s perfect work or is it more a blemished, imperfect creation?

The wise will know that God does not do imperfect.

Regards
DL

 

[jimmy]

Jesus himself said that to follow we must -hate our mother and fathers and all material works- or some such. Same as the Gnostics so again using that against them is silly.

You should interpret things in their proper context. The fact is that Jesus did not say that you should hate matter. He did say that you should love your neighbor as your self but He also said that you should love God with all your heart, mind, and soul. There is no sense of matter as evil anywhere in Christ’s words if you read them without an agenda. With an agenda, we can interpret anyone to be anything we want them to be. The fact is that the gnostics believed that matter is inherently evil. That is why they were docetic.

Gnostics, like Christians had hot, medium and cold believers. Literalists and non.

That is gnosticism though. Maybe you will have some among them who will see the contradictions and reject them but the fact is that that is what the gnostic sects professed.

They though that miracles were untrue because they went against nature and physics as we know it today. They thought that if Jesus was God then after the resurrection he would have stayed --the time of the end is at hand-- and guided mankind instead of leaving evil here and taking a holiday.

First of all, the gnostics didn’t know physics as it is known today so no they did not argue against miracles based on modern physics. Their arguement against Jesus was the claim that He was God because God could not associate with matter because matter was evil. There were some who believed that there were two gods, one good and one evil. Jesus was the good god who came to emancipate man from the material world which was created by the evil god.

Seems logical to me.

The idea of two gods seems logical to you? You have simply moved back to the pagan concept of the gods, which is a completely different concept from God.

A good example was the fall of Eve. Christians did not think it a good thing while Gnostics thought that man, without the moral sense that eating of the tree gave, would have been the evil thing.

God agreed with the Gnostics on this or obviously God’s will would have been thwarted and that is impossible.

You are going to have to give a reference for this. But the fact is that the gnostics rejected the OT because they rejected the god of the OT as evil.

That is why we enjoy moral sense today.

Because of disobedience? You must claim the moral sense of the nihilists and moral relativists as well with your philosophy because your philosophy says that we gained our moral sense from Eve. Therefore it is common to all. Morality is determined in seperation from the commands of God.

On the contrary, Christianity professes that morality is conformity with the commands of God.

 

[jimmy]

Only if we want to stand behind a Jesus scapegoat and add weight to the cross instead of doing the moral thing of helping him carry it.

vicarious redemption is immoral. God rejected it from Jesus and should or would reject it again if it came about toady.
Proof of this is in the fact that sin and evil still exists.

If God would have accepted it then they would not. God does not do half measures. If He were to forgive sin at all then he would forgive all sin and close the gates of an empty hell forever.

The God I know has done so but most do not as yet know him.

Regards
DL

We should stick to gnosticism. The resurrection and other aspects of Christianity are a seperate issue and to discuss them here would take things way of track. It is also impossible to discuss all this stuff in one discussion.

 

[CentralFLJames]

You are going to have to give a reference for this. But the fact is that the gnostics rejected the OT because they rejected the god of the OT as evil.

This is accurate. The gnostics believed that the Jewish God was a subordinate god, the Demiurge, who was evil. They are dualist and utterly whacked…

James

 

[Justafool]

Daniel Keeran

It seems that those here want a Gnostic that will agree with them rather than recognizing that Gnostics were born to be a pain in the mind of Christians. Christians get huffy when the natural thing happens. They want to talk to another sheep and get angry when they hear a goat. We are supposed to be the loyal opposition in order that we all find the God within.
You will not find him if you do not look.

If you, not you D K, already know all that God can teach you then go away and find someone that wants to learn of your God

I do not. I already know the real God and have rejected your miracle working absentee God.

I am supposed to be irreverent and am good at it but recognize that I also have a, go for the throat, debating style in me that loves to come out and confront foolish notions. I do try to control myself and be civil but give in kind when others are not.

I am not stupid and do not think others generally are till what they say something that sounds stupid to me. I reserve the right to say so. I expect the same coming back and love to learn.

I do not take scripture literally and ask that whoever wants to chat recognize that modern Gnosticism is first and foremost a Christian sect of free thinkers. Goats among sheep.

If at any time you Daniel Keeran think this thread is better served without me then say the word and I am gone.

God says to love all men and I do but He also says to respect no man and I do not until it has been earned.
I expect no more.

Like Jesus, I come to divide, not bring together. Death to ideas must happen before rebirth can occur. Death is hard to take. If any cannot take the heat then they should leave now.

Now that I have explained my position I will look at your post above and reply soon.

Regards
DL

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I will answer the questions posed regarding gnostic elements in early Catholicism. Some elements are also found in Platonic and Pythagorean philosophy. However, none of the elements listed are found in scripture, which shows the gnostic and pagan influence on the development of early Catholicism.

1. What was the gnostic view of afterlife according to the Pistis Sophia and how does it compare with Catholic purgatory?
   ANSWER: Both teach the idea of cleansing stain/sin after death before entering heaven.
2. What was the gnostic idea of the pneumatic level of spirituality and how does it compare with the Catholic idea of sainthood?
   ANSWER: Both teach the idea of a higher level of perfection and ability to enter heaven without passing through a cleansing after death, in contrast to sacred scripture that teaches all Christians are saints.
3. What was the gnostic idea of Mother of the Angels and Virgin of Light in the Pistis Sophia and how does it compare with the Catholic idea of Mary?
   ANSWER: Both teach the idea of a female figure (Mary-catholic; Wisdom-gnostic) who is Mother (gnostic) or Queen (catholic) of the Angels. Catholics also teach Mary is ever-virgin and consort of God, while this is the role of Sophia in gnosticism.
4. What was the gnostic view of the value and purpose of asceticism and celibacy and how does it compare with the Catholic view of asceticism and celibacy?
   ANSWER: Both teach renunciation of bodily desires and of marriage or of abstinence within marriage, combined with contemplation of the divine, as the way to achieve perfection.
5. What was the gnostic idea of the human body as stained and how does it compare with the Catholic/Protestant idea of the human body as stained?
   ANSWER: Both teach that the spirit is contaminated at conception when the spirit enters the body.
6. What is the earliest known reference to chrism oil in relation to baptism, Catholic or gnostic?
   ANSWER: The earliest known reference the chrism oil in relation to baptism is the gnostic Gospel of Philip and the Pistis Sophia, 150 AD.
7. What is the earliest known reference to couples’ adopting celibacy in marriage?
   ANSWER: The gnostic Acts of Thomas, 200-225 AD.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Daniel Keeran

Like Jesus, I come to divide, not bring together. Death to ideas must happen before rebirth can occur. Death is hard to take. If any cannot take the heat then they should leave now.

Now that I have explained my position I will look at your post above and reply soon.

Regards
DL

Anyone is invited to freely discuss anything they wish. But my hope is that everyone would like to discuss only what I want them to discuss.

 

[annem]

1. What was the gnostic view of afterlife according to the Pistis Sophia and how does it compare with Catholic purgatory?
2. What was the gnostic idea of the pneumatic level of spirituality and how does it compare with the Catholic idea of sainthood?
3. What was the gnostic idea of Mother of the Angels and Virgin of Light in the Pistis Sophia and how does it compare with the Catholic idea of Mary?
4. What was the gnostic view of the value and purpose of asceticism and celibacy and how does it compare with the Catholic view of asceticism and celibacy?
5. What was the gnostic idea of the human body as stained and how does it compare with the Catholic idea of the human body as stained?
6. What is the earliest known reference to chrism oil in relation to baptism, Catholic or gnostic?
7. What is the earliest reference to couples’ adopting celibacy in marriage?

1. The Catholic view of purgatory came from Second Temple Judaism and has nothing to do with any Gnostic cult. Macabees shows this.
2. In no way does any Gnostic cult compare in spirituality to Catholic spirituality, since Gnostics were small, elite cults who came much later than Christianity. That they put Christian titles on their works is proof that Christianity had an enormous impact on society already, and that Christian ideas were everywhere. After all before any Gnostic school was formed we have evidence of whole areas in which pagan temples were deserted there had been so many conversions to Christianity.
3. There is no connection. It’s easy to prove. Read the Evangelium, which was earlier than Pistis, and a very popular book in comparison to Pistis, to find a more Catholic view of Mary.
4. The general Gnostic view (there were many small Gnostic schools and they all had different ideas) was that flesh was bad, sex was bad, the world was bad, and only they were the enlightened. The Catholic view was and is that flesh is good, sex is good, the world is good, and everyone can be enlightened.
5. The general Gnostic view as that humanity is evil and created by an evil God. The Catholic view is God is good and God wants us to turn to goodness and God. Adam’s fall has left us with a tendency to want what is wrong, but we can overcome it. First by baptism, and then by our will.

You need to read “A Separate God” by Petrement considered the classic and most important work on Gnosticism. Clearly, you have come across some very poor scholarship on the subject.

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

1. The Catholic view of purgatory came from Second Temple Judaism and has nothing to do with any Gnostic cult. Macabees shows this.
   REPLY: The single quote from Macabees shows Hellenistic influence on Judaism that also inflenced gnosticism/early Catholicism.
2. In no way does any Gnostic cult compare in spirituality to Catholic spirituality, since Gnostics were small, elite cults who came much later than Christianity. That they put Christian titles on their works is proof that Christianity had an enormous impact on society already, and that Christian ideas were everywhere. After all before any Gnostic school was formed we have evidence of whole areas in which pagan temples were deserted there had been so many conversions to Christianity.
   REPLY: Gnosticism was pervasive in the Roman empire and took on Christian aspects especially in Egypt and Syria/Palestine.
3. There is no connection. It’s easy to prove. Read the Evangelium, which was earlier than Pistis, and a very popular book in comparison to Pistis, to find a more Catholic view of Mary.
   REPLY: The Protoevangelium was written after the Pistis Sophia.
4. The general Gnostic view (there were many small Gnostic schools and they all had different ideas) was that flesh was bad, sex was bad, the world was bad, and only they were the enlightened. The Catholic view was and is that flesh is good, sex is good, the world is good, and everyone can be enlightened.
   REPLY: The practice of asceticism has been popular since the time of Pythagoras, and came into the ECF’s because of their love of Greek philosophy that also influenced gnosticism.
5. The general Gnostic view as that humanity is evil and created by an evil God. The Catholic view is God is good and God wants us to turn to goodness and God. Adam’s fall has left us with a tendency to want what is wrong, but we can overcome it. First by baptism, and then by our will.
   REPLY: Catholicism teaches inherited sin by conception into flesh; gnostics taught flesh is evil.

Certainly early Catholicism did weed out blantant aspects of gnosticism, e.g. two gods, but retained other popular notions.

 

[Justafool]

Somehow I wasn’t receiving notifications and thought the thread had died only to find it is very much alive.

Here are some questions to refocus for any who wish to continue exploring:

1. What was the gnostic view of afterlife according to the Pistis Sophia and how does it compare with Catholic purgatory?

I had to shorten the posting so if i erased anything of import, please forgive.

This again is an issue of personal choice.

We must remember that if we all stopped doing sex, it would mean the end to mankind.
Any policy that kills of a species should be scrapped.

Regards
DL