Gnostic writings

[Sufjon]

Hmmm…sort of like the Quakers?

Well, I suppose that depends on your perspective and how you’re defining success vs. failure. If I were looking to teach a class on how to run a business, I would take them on a field trip to the Vatican. If I were giving a class on how to act, I would take them to a Quaker Meeting House. It’s all relative.

 

[SedesDomi]

Well, I suppose that depends on your perspective and how you’re defining success vs. failure. If I were looking to teach a class on how to run a business, I would take them on a field trip to the Vatican…

Or, to Salt Lake City.

 

[Sufjon]

Or, to Salt Lake City.

Absolutely!

 

[LongJourney]

Absolutely!

Actually, a much better example.



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Creek_Center

 

[Sufjon]

Actually, a much better example.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped.../300px-City_Creek_Center_construction_SLC.jpg

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Creek_Center

Looks like I’m diverting my field trip to Salt Lake City!

 

[LongJourney]

Dangit!! I thought I had an excellent diversion from my obsession, and lookit what happened!! :banghead:

 

[SedesDomi]

Mormonism isn’t “Gnostic”, but Joseph Smith did study the Kabbalah a bit, so there is likely a strong esoteric undercurrent (or overcurrent) within Mormonism.

 

[LongJourney]

Overcurrent is a good term. The BoM really isn’t that Gnostic, it presents Baptist theology, and was plagiarized from many sources. Definitely not what a true Gnostic would do.

However, many post-1840 LDS teachings were wild cosmological speculation. This speech, three months before Joseph Smith was killed tells exactly how far out he got:
emp.byui.edu/jexj/new/talks/talks/JS%20KingFollettDiscourse.pdf

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Well, I suppose that depends on your perspective and how you’re defining success vs. failure. If I were looking to teach a class on how to run a business, I would take them on a field trip to the Vatican. If I were giving a class on how to act, I would take them to a Quaker Meeting House. It’s all relative.

Not quite, I would say. Quakers don’t have a monpoly on “ideal” behavior. Remember, two our presidents have been Quakers.

HERBERT HOOVER and RICHARD NIXON.

Those great patriots and statesmen.

 

[Publisher]

Not quite, I would say. Quakers don’t have a monpoly on “ideal” behavior. Remember, two our presidents have been Quakers.

HERBERT HOOVER and RICHARD NIXON.

Those great patriots and statesmen.

Don’t know much about Hoover…know a bit more about Nixon. In the Meeting he was a member of in Wittier California…many wanted to “read him out of meeting” for his crime…but more sensible Friends spoke up for him and decided to “commend him to the Light”…I don’t believe he attended…but was a “birthright Friends”…similar to a baptized infant in the Catholic church who never goes to church…no one holds Friend Richard up as a role model…the role models were those Friends who had compassion and refused to allow him to be “read out of meeting.”

 

[SedesDomi]

Not quite, I would say. Quakers don’t have a monpoly on “ideal” behavior. Remember, two our presidents have been Quakers.

HERBERT HOOVER and RICHARD NIXON.

Those great patriots and statesmen.

Nixon, like most great man, had great failings, but also great triumphs. To wit:

The most immediate task facing President Nixon was a resolution of the Vietnam War. He initially escalated the conflict, overseeing incursions into neighboring countries, though American military personnel were gradually withdrawn and he successfully negotiated a ceasefire with North Vietnam in 1973, effectively ending American involvement in the war. His foreign policy initiatives were largely successful: his groundbreaking visit to the People’s Republic of China in 1972 opened diplomatic relations between the two nations, and he initiated détente and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the Soviet Union. On the domestic front, he implemented the concept of New Federalism, transferring power from the federal government to the states; new economic policies which called for wage and price control and the abolition of the gold standard; sweeping environmental reforms, including the Clean Air Act and creation of the EPA; the launch of the War on Cancer and War on Drugs; reforms empowering women, including Title IX; and the desegregation of schools in the deep South.

 

[Sufjon]

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.

Dear Jesness: That’s an interesting view. It’s funny you would mention it, but the same things that you saw that made Him look arrogant made Him seem to me more playful, or more childlike to me. Not childlike in a naive way, but childlike in His playfulness and enjoyment of things. In fact, He often appears as a child to those around Him in those writings. A bit like Young Krishna when He was a child and liked to steal butter. I see parallels there. In fact, there are those who believe that Krishna and Jesus are different incarnations of the same thing in different places and different time. That’s a mater of belief and I have no suggestion to offer. So, not saying that your impression was incorrect - it may be more correct than mine. It’s just funny how two people saw the same thing two different ways. I think that’s fascinating. Thanks for sharing.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

To get back to the topic—

To me, one of the greatest flaws of Gnosticism was its “exclusivity.”
Only CERTAIN people were chosen to understand the esoteric Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God was not available to everyone, as in the mainstream version. One had to WORK towards perfection through succesive lifetimes.

The God we knew wasn’t even THE God. He was a false God (The Demi-Urge) who ruled the lower “spheres” and was angry and tyrannical, i.e., “The Old Testament God.”
This is what caused the TRUE God (of the higher "spheres above the Demi-Urge), i.e. The New Testament God, to send his Son “invade” the lower “spheres,” thereby proclaiming the TRUE Gospel of the TRUE God in defiance of the FALSE God of the lower realms, thereby hopefully causing a “revolution” of sorts to break out for the “Truth.”

Where do you think Phillip K. Dick got his “Divine Invasions” theme from???

Can anyone say “The Inspiration for THE MATRIX?”

The Gnostic Gospels cannot even agree which of Jesus’s circle were or were not “The Chosen Ones” who were party to the hidden, true knowledge of Jesus. The Gospel Of Thomas says it was Thomas who was the “Chosen One.”
The Gospel of Judas says it was old Iscariot.
The Gospel of Mary says it was…you guessed it. (This is also the Gospel where Jesus is supposed to have "kissed Mary on the…"and the word is lost. Dan Brown enthusiasts got a kick out that one). uch:
Some Hammadi texts even incorporate Egyptian Hermeticism and old Hermes Trismegistus into the mix.

Personally, a good survey of the motivation behind Gnosticism as a reponse to early mainstream Christianity would have to be (Non-Catholic) Alistair McGrath’s “Heresy” book, which traces a possible reason for it in genuine questions regarding the portrait of God shown in OT and the portrait shown in NT. Good book to read as an alternative to the “poor Gnostics who were persecuted by the Big Bad Orthodox Christians” mainstream narrative you get these days.

Not that there were not persecutions on BOTH sides, but it wasn’t “as simple as that.”

BTW, did you know that Marcion, probably the earliest Gnostic, did not become a Gnostic until AFTER he had been rejected by the Church for trying to deny Christ’s Jewish heritage and to take all Jewish traditions out of the Gospels???

Ultimately Gnosticism is an interesting but unwieldy and inconsistent ideology which, while it proves that early Christianity was NOT monolithic, does nothing to succesfully answer to even refute the Faith ol Old.
And it unfortunately has been used by people wanting to transform Holy Mother Church beyond all reason into something that fits certain political/moral agendas.

Sorry, Publisher you are wrong. And if it comes to pass that Gnosticism supplants Orthodoxy and tradition, I tremble at the fate of Western Civ.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Nixon, like most great man, had great failings, but also great triumphs. To wit:

The most immediate task facing President Nixon was a resolution of the Vietnam War. He initially escalated the conflict, overseeing incursions into neighboring countries, though American military personnel were gradually withdrawn and he successfully negotiated a ceasefire with North Vietnam in 1973, effectively ending American involvement in the war. His foreign policy initiatives were largely successful: his groundbreaking visit to the People’s Republic of China in 1972 opened diplomatic relations between the two nations, and he initiated détente and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the Soviet Union. On the domestic front, he implemented the concept of New Federalism, transferring power from the federal government to the states; new economic policies which called for wage and price control and the abolition of the gold standard; sweeping environmental reforms, including the Clean Air Act and creation of the EPA; the launch of the War on Cancer and War on Drugs; reforms empowering women, including Title IX; and the desegregation of schools in the deep South.

Very true—ultimately Ole Dick was not QUITE as bad as folks make him out to be. Just answering the idea that because one is a Quaker that therefore one should use THAT as an ideal of “How One Should Act” per the previous post. ALL religious and ideological people in whatever denomination or creed have done good AND bad. Quakers are not necessarily “better” than other creeds because they emphasize pacifism or the “Inner Light.”

Also,
As far as I know, Quakers are not too proud to let it be known that Nixon was one of their own–in fact, many disown him outright. Same for Hoover.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Don’t know much about Hoover…know a bit more about Nixon. In the Meeting he was a member of in Wittier California…many wanted to “read him out of meeting” for his crime…but more sensible Friends spoke up for him and decided to “commend him to the Light”…I don’t believe he attended…but was a “birthright Friends”…similar to a baptized infant in the Catholic church who never goes to church…no one holds Friend Richard up as a role model…the role models were those Friends who had compassion and refused to allow him to be “read out of meeting.”

See Post #34, Publisher.

 

[Nine_Two]

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.

Alexandrian Gnostics? That’s not a sect name I’m familiar with.

At any rate I hasten to point out that when I said “orthodox” I meant the Christianity that became mainstream, and not a specific church existing today (although my argument there would be obvious). I disagree that Christianity became the religion of the Empire for political reasons, it was a minority throughout Constantine’s reign and he already had a ready built network through pagans. Julian seems to have had no trouble governing and seems to have been one of the last competant emperors.

Regarding teaching the orthodox had nothing on the Ariens in “aggression” and for most of the period you’re talking about the Ariens held sway.

If anything killed the Gnostics it was the common belief that having children was the ultimate sin. I’m only aware of three sects which did not hold this teaching, two survive to this day (Mandians and Yezidi’s), the third being Manicheans, who as I previously stated survived into the 16th century.

 

[Nine_Two]

Ultimately Gnosticism is an interesting but unwieldy and inconsistent ideology which, while it proves that early Christianity was NOT monolithic, does nothing to succesfully answer to even refute the Faith ol Old.
And it unfortunately has been used by people wanting to transform Holy Mother Church beyond all reason into something that fits certain political/moral agendas.

The reason Gnosticism is so inconsistent is because it’s a catchall term. It would be like looking at Baptists and Lutherans and concluding Protestantism is inconsistent. Of course it is, but they aren’t meant to be.

 

[LongJourney]

Personally, a good survey of the motivation behind Gnosticism as a reponse to early mainstream Christianity would have to be (Non-Catholic) **Alistair McGrath’s “Heresy” **book, which traces a possible reason for it in genuine questions regarding the portrait of God shown in OT and the portrait shown in NT. Good book to read as an alternative to the “poor Gnostics who were persecuted by the Big Bad Orthodox Christians” mainstream narrative you get these days.

That is the kind of thing I am looking for. Thank you for the suggestion.

The Theosophists were modern Gnostics, and seemed to use a lot of magic, right?

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

The reason Gnosticism is so inconsistent is because it’s a catchall term. It would be like looking at Baptists and Lutherans and concluding Protestantism is inconsistent. Of course it is, but they aren’t meant to be.

True, indeed. What I meant to say is that Gnosticism is inconsistent compared to the REALTIVE stability of the Orthodox view that has been the truth over so many centuries.
The traditional view, while it has undergone some "changes, has basically held fast on the tenets and uniformity of its faith for 3000 years. You cannot say that for Gnosticism.

I also agree with you about the “anti-children,” “anti-sex” angle that doomed the Gnostics. Ironic, since the Church has been accused perpetually since time immemorial of being “anti-sex” and “anti-this-world.”
McGrath in the book makes a good point about that. Ironically, Holy Mother Church actually LIKES this world and thinks sex within marriage is GOOD!!!

You want anti-sex and anti-world-views??? Look no further than our “enlightened” firends the Gnostics.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

That is the kind of thing I am looking for. Thank you for the suggestion.

The Theosophists were modern Gnostics, and seemed to use a lot of magic, right?

So to speak. I don’t know if Ole Madame Blavatsky and Henry Steele Olcott would quite agree, though.

Most of Theosophism can be traced directly to the Hermetic Texts of the Second and Third Centuries AD. Where Hermes makes his grand appearance.
AND classic Hinduism. And Platonism. And even ancient alchemical texts. And other influences whcih I could mention (and which escape my mind at the moment ).

Crowley went on to leave Theosophy and found his own misbegotten, Satanic, Magic-inspired Ordo Templis Novo.

So you can say that Theosophy did inspire a lot of Bad in this world.