Gnostic writings

[LongJourney]

Some of these writings are downright weird, some contain some truth amid strange speculation. We can laugh at some, and cry at some, and marvel at others. What are your reactions to these writings?

gnosis.org/library.html

 

[Sufjon]

Some of these writings are downright weird, some contain some truth amid strange speculation. We can laugh at some, and cry at some, and marvel at others. What are your reactions to these writings?

gnosis.org/library.html

If you want to understand these writings I would recommend reading the entire Nag Hammadi Library or Scriptures (commonly known as the gnostic writings). I have read them all a number of times, and it takes about a year to even cover them even on a superficial level. I don’t personally feel that much of an understanding can be gained otherwise. There’s a lot of background to be understood before even reading them. In regards to the question of what I think of them, well, I think they give a lot of insight and they’re certainly very mystical. I wouldn’t go so far as to speculate as to the validity of the Nag Hammadi corpus as opposed to more mainstream gospels and apocryphal writings. I see more parallels between the gnostic writings and other serious spiritual works such as the Kabbalah, Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads and so on - all of which are very sophisticated once the meanings are closely explored. My opinion is that they’re an important body of work. I wouldn’t offer that they are any more or less valid than anything else. Specifically I’m not promoting them or discounting them any more than I would the Bible, and of course you know I’m agnostic, so I would decline to take sides.

 

[LongJourney]

Thanks for the advice. I am losing interest in the Mormon issue, since my book is completed, although there are a few insights I can add. That is a new avenue of research for me. Amazing how much better I can understand Catholicism by studying what isn’t Catholic. That is just the way my mind works, I guess.

 

[Sufjon]

Thanks for the advice. I am losing interest in the Mormon issue, since my book is completed, although there are a few insights I can add. That is a new avenue of research for me. Amazing how much better I can understand Catholicism by studying what isn’t Catholic. That is just the way my mind works, I guess.

Well, I think it’s great that you look at everything that’s available to you.

 

[LongJourney]

God gave me a good mind for a reason.

 

[Nine_Two]

Strangely the Nag Hammadi Library was the final straw that encouraged me to leave behind a Protestant mindset and embrace Orthodoxy.

The books in the Library range from pretty orthodox with only minor issues (Gospel of Thomas) to downright offensive (The unnamed text, known as “On The Origin of the World”). I do think, however, that it is important that people know what is in these texts as they are an avenue used for attack against Christianity, and in my mind they bring in to grave doubt the protestant idea that the scripture we have is to guide us alone (why the Gospel of John, and not the Apocryphon of John?).

 

[Publisher]

Gnosticism in all it’s forms was in competition in those first centuries with the other various traditions of Christianity in becoming the dominant version of Christianity and was rejected very strongly by those who claimed to be “orthodox”.

The writings discovered at Nag Hammaddi were used as scripture in various congregations along with the writings of Paul and some of the gospels…I believe Mark was used…as was the Gospel of Peter.

The Gospel of Thomas has been called “Gnostic”…even though much of it’s passages find parallels in the canonical gospels. It really doesn’t have a “true Gnostic” flavor.

Gospel of Truth, Gospel of Mary Magdalene and Gospel of Phillip has some very profound and interesting passages…especially those that deal with the cosmos. The Pleroma (Fullness) which consists of Depth and Silence…emmanations from the True Father which eventually found it’s manifestation within Jesus of Nazareth influenced thought deeply for 200+ years.

Valentius, a prominent Gnostic of the 2nd century almost became bishop of Rome. Valenius claimed to be a student of Thedus who was a student of Paul…even among the Gnostics the myth of “apostolic sucession” was finding root.

IMO one of the reasons Gnosticism failed was it’s lack of “hierarchy” in it’s various congregations. Every Lord’s Day a new “presider”…“priest” was chosen to lead in worship from among those in the congregations…and much to the chagrin of the “orthodox”…even chose “women to lead…”

For almost 1900 years we had a very…skewed understanding of Christian history…now we know Christianity was much more diverse in it’s expressions in those first centuries than it is today even with it’s various denominational idiosyncrasies.

I know many of those in “apostolic” traditions today yell “REVISIONIST HISTORY” when such ideas are put forth…to me…this so called “revisionist history” is much more credible than the clean, mystical, pious history put forth by the conservative camp of today.

 

[Nine_Two]

The Gospel of Thomas has been called “Gnostic”…even though much of it’s passages find parallels in the canonical gospels. It really doesn’t have a “true Gnostic” flavor.

The final verse is really the only one that is actually gnostic, and I’ve read that the theory is that it was added later, which makes sense since it doesn’t seem to fit.

Gospel of Truth, Gospel of Mary Magdalene and Gospel of Phillip has some very profound and interesting passages…especially those that deal with the cosmos. The Pleroma (Fullness) which consists of Depth and Silence…emmanations from the True Father which eventually found it’s manifestation within Jesus of Nazareth influenced thought deeply for 200+ years.

I’ll grant you interesting, though the influence is more Platonic than Christ.

Valentius, a prominent Gnostic of the 2nd century almost became bishop of Rome. Valenius claimed to be a student of Thedus who was a student of Paul…even among the Gnostics the myth of “apostolic sucession” was finding root.

It is noteworthy that Valentius didn’t begin spreading gnosticism until after he lost the election. Prior to that he passed himself off as fully orthodox. Whether he was or not at that time is unknowable.

IMO one of the reasons Gnosticism failed was it’s lack of “hierarchy” in it’s various congregations. Every Lord’s Day a new “presider”…“priest” was chosen to lead in worship from among those in the congregations…and much to the chagrin of the “orthodox”…even chose “women to lead…”

It might also have had something to do with its belief that the God of the Jews was an evil entity often described as “The Great Abortion”.

For almost 1900 years we had a very…skewed understanding of Christian history…now we know Christianity was much more diverse in it’s expressions in those first centuries than it is today even with it’s various denominational idiosyncrasies.

The gnostics were known about for quite some time, as evidenced by the fact that the kept popping up. Manicheans survived into the 16th century, while the Cathars were a major movement as late as the 13th century.

I know many of those in “apostolic” traditions today yell “REVISIONIST HISTORY” when such ideas are put forth…to me…this so called “revisionist history” is much more credible than the clean, mystical, pious history put forth by the conservative camp of today.

What ideas?

 

[Publisher]

The idea that Christianity was much more diverse in the first several hundred years than Christianity is today with it’s various denominations.

Except for the writings of Paul, and the gospel of Mark in the 50-60"s…and the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John in the late 80’s to early second centuries…we have very little info on the spread of Christianity…it “re-emerged” in the second century as converts began writing histories and consolidating congregations under the various “deacons”, “priests” and “bishops” as developed among the proto-orthodox/catholic versions of Christianiy.

Each of the competing versions claimed they were taught by the apostles…we know very little of the original apostles except for the mythical accounts in Acts, a few sparse references to Peter, James and John by Paul. Out of the second and third centuries the various myths of “what happened to the Twelve” began circulating…“nature hates a void”…and so do religious people it seems…the various stories of the apostles and where they went and what churches they began is mostly pious myth.

I have come to appreciate the history of the Christian church over the last few years…to me…it makes much more sense when viewed through the lens of Marcus Borg, John Crossan, Bart Erhman, Eilaine Pagels, Joan O’Grady, Hyam Mcoby, Burton Mack and Huston Smith to name a few.

 

[Sufjon]

The idea that Christianity was much more diverse in the first several hundred years than Christianity is today with it’s various denominations.

Except for the writings of Paul, and the gospel of Mark in the 50-60"s…and the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John in the late 80’s to early second centuries…we have very little info on the spread of Christianity…it “re-emerged” in the second century as converts began writing histories and consolidating congregations under the various “deacons”, “priests” and “bishops” as developed among the proto-orthodox/catholic versions of Christianiy.

Each of the competing versions claimed they were taught by the apostles…we know very little of the original apostles except for the mythical accounts in Acts, a few sparse references to Peter, James and John by Paul. Out of the second and third centuries the various myths of “what happened to the Twelve” began circulating…“nature hates a void”…and so do religious people it seems…the various stories of the apostles and where they went and what churches they began is mostly pious myth.

I have come to appreciate the history of the Christian church over the last few years…to me…it makes much more sense when viewed through the lens of Marcus Borg, John Crossan, Bart Erhman, Eilaine Pagels, Joan O’Grady, Hyam Mcoby, Burton Mack and Huston Smith to name a few.

Friend Publisher: I think that the lens through which people like Eilaine Pagels and the others you mentioned as well as folks like John Shelby Spong will over time redefine our understanding of who and what we are as well as what we believe. It will of course shatter a lot of old assumptions that many of us continue to cling dearly to, and I think that’s okay. Eventually, the factual conclusions resulting from their painstaking and scholarly work will settle into mainstream consciousness and the human race will continue grow. I liken it to that way in which it would have been a a shock some 600 years ago to suggest that lightening bugs weren’t the souls of unbaptized children. Today, few people even know that was a common belief. So here we are, on the precipice of another exciting time in our evolution, and the good news is that there’s always more to come.

“Born to multiply - born to gaze into night skies”
-The Shins

 

[Publisher]

Friend Publisher: I think that the lens through which people like Eilaine Pagels and the others you mentioned as well as folks like John Shelby Spong will over time redefine our understanding of who and what we are as well as what we believe. It will of course shatter a lot of old assumptions that many of us continue to cling dearly to, and I think that’s okay. Eventually, the factual conclusions resulting from their painstaking and scholarly work will settle into mainstream consciousness and the human race will continue grow. I liken it to that way in which it would have been a a shock some 600 years ago to suggest that lightening bugs weren’t the souls of unbaptized children. Today, few people even know that was a common belief. So here we are, on the precipice of another exciting time in our evolution, and the good news is that there’s always more to come.

“Born to multiply - born to gaze into night skies”
-The Shins

Friend Sufjon,

I do agree with you, eventually modern scholarship will win over pious history. While I do not take every word of the authors I mentioned as “gospel”…and each of them do draw some different conclusions about some things…the evidence that each of them present does, for me at least, point to a “smoking gun” and fills in the holes much of the pious history the established church presented…which has much myth, miracles and legend attached to it.

I do like John Spong as well…he’s an awesome speaker.

 

[SedesDomi]

IMO one of the reasons Gnosticism failed was it’s lack of “hierarchy” in it’s various congregations.

Hmmm…sort of like the Quakers?

 

[LongJourney]

Hmmm…sort of like the Quakers?

LOL!!

Right now we are speculating what is going to happen to Mormonism, as individual wards and stakes diversify, and the hierarchy refuses to order orthodoxy for fear of losing tithe-payers.

Yeah, tracing the history of the Catholic Church, as she sorted through various heresies, would have some practical purpose in refuting Restorationism. We also need to recognize the works of the ECF. She must constantly refresh herself by returning to her roots.

 

[Jesness]

Personally, outside of maybe, “The Gospel of Thomas” I couldn’t get on board with the gnostic gospels if only because of the ratically diffrent portral of Jesus. The Jesus of the gnostic gospels is often arrogant and in some cases downright mean. I seem to remember that in one portion He tells the diciples not to worry about offending people because they were just animals without reason. I don’t see much value in them, but then again I’m no scholar, so I could be wrong.

 

[Nine_Two]

The idea that Christianity was much more diverse in the first several hundred years than Christianity is today with it’s various denominations.

Except for the writings of Paul, and the gospel of Mark in the 50-60"s…and the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John in the late 80’s to early second centuries…we have very little info on the spread of Christianity…it “re-emerged” in the second century as converts began writing histories and consolidating congregations under the various “deacons”, “priests” and “bishops” as developed among the proto-orthodox/catholic versions of Christianiy.

Each of the competing versions claimed they were taught by the apostles…we know very little of the original apostles except for the mythical accounts in Acts, a few sparse references to Peter, James and John by Paul. Out of the second and third centuries the various myths of “what happened to the Twelve” began circulating…“nature hates a void”…and so do religious people it seems…the various stories of the apostles and where they went and what churches they began is mostly pious myth.

I have come to appreciate the history of the Christian church over the last few years…to me…it makes much more sense when viewed through the lens of Marcus Borg, John Crossan, Bart Erhman, Eilaine Pagels, Joan O’Grady, Hyam Mcoby, Burton Mack and Huston Smith to name a few.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by “diverse”, most of these groups were quite small, the only gnostic group that seems to have had much widespread success were the Manicheans. The beliefs were certainly out there, that is undeniable, however early on the only major systems seem to be the orthodox, the arien, and the manichean possitions, with the Manicheans playing the role of a master syncratic religion, taking bits and pieces of everything it came across.

Other than Valentius I am not aware of anyone who claimed to have taken their knowledge from the apostles, and as I already said, Valentius was orthodox until he failed in the election at which time he began preaching a hidden knowledge. The circumstances seem more like vanity to me. He certainly was the deciple of a deciple, but that doesn’t prevent error.

You can follow a group that democraticly decides what happened and what did not, but that seems unacademic to me, otherwise one is forced to admit that eugenics is correct, since at one time it had the following of the majority of scientists. Of course that vote has since changed, what does that tell you about democracizing facts?

 

[Publisher]

Hmmm…sort of like the Quakers?

I guess that’s one take on it…or it could be that most people need rituals and rites…most faiths don’t have a strict adherance to peace and non-violence…most faiths don’t “turn the other cheek”…most faiths have a modified belief in the worth of persons…people of color…sexual minorities…women…not too many could get behind those types of ideas…so while your take would be one factor…I have a strong suspicion the other reasons had more to do with it…along with the fact that most people cannot sit in silence for an hour…and the stress of simplicity and plainess…but your point probably has merit.

 

[SedesDomi]

I guess that’s one take on it…or it could be that most people need rituals and rites…most faiths don’t have a strict adherance to peace and non-violence…most faiths don’t “turn the other cheek”…most faiths have a modified belief in the worth of persons…people of color…sexual minorities…women…not too many could get behind those types of ideas…so while your take would be one factor…I have a strong suspicion the other reasons had more to do with it…along with the fact that most people cannot sit in silence for an hour…and the stress of simplicity and plainess…but your point probably has merit.

Of course, I’m not hoping, or implying, that the Quakers, like the Gnostics, will “fail”, either for reasons of lack of hierarchy or lack of sufficient ritual or what-not. One major difference separating the Quakers from the Gnostics is that the Gnostics were likely simply too “esoteric” for most people, and not really conducive to a vibrant family life in which children could be educated into the Gnostic system. Whereas the Quakers’ esotericism is based on the Inner Light (and not on legions of archons, and powers, and what-not), which is a solid Christian idea that even the orthodox could support; and the Quakers do not denigrate the material world, thus making family life and child rearing part of the spiritual practice. I predict that as long as there are Christians of some sort in the world, then there will be Quakers.

 

[Publisher]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by “diverse”, most of these groups were quite small, the only gnostic group that seems to have had much widespread success were the Manicheans. The beliefs were certainly out there, that is undeniable, however early on the only major systems seem to be the orthodox, the arien, and the manichean possitions, with the Manicheans playing the role of a master syncratic religion, taking bits and pieces of everything it came across.

Other than Valentius I am not aware of anyone who claimed to have taken their knowledge from the apostles, and as I already said, Valentius was orthodox until he failed in the election at which time he began preaching a hidden knowledge. The circumstances seem more like vanity to me. He certainly was the deciple of a deciple, but that doesn’t prevent error.

You can follow a group that democraticly decides what happened and what did not, but that seems unacademic to me, otherwise one is forced to admit that eugenics is correct, since at one time it had the following of the majority of scientists. Of course that vote has since changed, what does that tell you about democracizing facts?

Well…Mark was supposed to be the founder of Alexiandrian Christianity…and the Alexandrian Gnostics trace themselves to him as well…most of those who claimed apostolic connections claimed Paul or John from what I remember.

Yes, many of the other groups were not as numerous as the proto-orthodox/catholics…but they didn’t have the network in place as the proto catholics did…one of the reasons Christianity became the religion of the empire is for that very political reason…Constantine had a ready made network of information reaching to many parts of the empire…plus over time with the agressive teaching methods employed by the proto-orthodox/catholic groups…the other traditions were assimilated into the larger group…but then since the larger group destroyed so much of the literature of the competing groups…not too much survived.

 

[Publisher]

Of course, I’m not hoping, or implying, that the Quakers, like the Gnostics, will “fail”, either for reasons of lack of hierarchy or lack of sufficient ritual or what-not. One major difference separating the Quakers from the Gnostics is that the Gnostics were likely simply too “esoteric” for most people, and not really conducive to a vibrant family life in which children could be educated into the Gnostic system. Whereas the Quakers’ esotericism is based on the Inner Light (and not on legions of archons, and powers, and what-not), which is a solid Christian idea that even the orthodox could support; and the Quakers do not denigrate the material world, thus making family life and child rearing part of the spiritual practice. I predict that as long as there are Christians of some sort in the world, then there will be Quakers.

All valid observations…and you are correct also that Friends don’t have an heirarchal system…all Friends are ministers…all Friends are expected to participate in the life of the Meeting in one way or another…being a Friend is a commitment to take the injunction to “work out your own salvation” quite seriously…no Friend can say…“My priest or minister told me such and such.” Each of us has the responsibility to establish a living faith and take responsibility on how that faith is lived out in this world.

Friends typically don’t believe that God will one day show up to make this world a better place…if this world is to be a better place…then we as the Body of Christ must make it a better place…a “realized eschatology” is strongly stressed…we live NOW within the Kingdom of God…this world is important…the next will take care of itself.

 

[LongJourney]

I predict that as long as there are Christians of some sort in the world, then there will be Quakers.

Greatly simplifying, the best way to get to heaven is by pleasing God through ethical behavior. Not Gnostic, by a far stretch.