Gnosticism and ancient alien fallacy

[MysticMonist]

Hello!

I wanted to share about my reasoning is wrong (I bet you don’t get many posters about that!) and see if I can improve it.
As a gnositic, I’m a fan of esoteric interprations of scripture that significantly change the message and meaning of nearly any passage in the Bible. I find it a deeply meaningful and empowering practice which helps connect with Living Christ and be spirtually illumined by the words.

However I’m fully admitting on a logical, objective level it’s seriously flawed. Have you seen the show the ancient aliens? They always begin something like “No one knows exactly how the Egyptians built the pyradims, some say with lots of labor, others say with clever engineering, but a few ancient alien theorists claim its aliens who did. Therefore aliens built the praymids and we will ignore the other hypothesises for the rest of the show.”
That’s pretty much what I do with scripture. I fully admit there are many interprations of each story but I say this gnostic or other esoteric one is out there and it’s really cool, so we are going to run with and accept it as valid. It does make reading the Bible a lot of fun and it’s great way to stump bible studies or your pastor, but it’s not exactly logical.
Now the church does this all the time too, they say we have one (or maybe a handful) of interprations of the text (out of dozens of ways it’s been intrepreted thru history) and they only ever pay attention to the authorized ones because of apostolic succession. They do this with the biblical cannon. An orthodox theologican doesn’t even care what’s in the book of Enoch or the gospel of truth because it’s not cannonical.
Anyways, I look forward to any response. Should be interesting.

Christ is Holy,
MM

 

[po18guy]

Rhetorical question: Are you indulging yourself? As I see it, choose one or the other: Christ, or Gnosticism. You cannot have both; you cannot serve two masters.

 

[MysticMonist]

Gnosticsm is very much about Christ. Arguably a pretty different version of Christ and a different interpration of what His salvation or gospel means.
Yet it is an ancient interpration, as old as Simon Magus.
The ad banner above happened to say “finding the real Jesus amoung imposters”. That’s very fitting. Its an excellent question, who is the real Jesus, who is the real God?

 

[MPat]

As a gnositic, I’m a fan of esoteric interprations of scripture that significantly change the message and meaning of nearly any passage in the Bible. I find it a deeply meaningful and empowering practice which helps connect with Living Christ and be spirtually illumined by the words.

However I’m fully admitting on a logical, objective level it’s seriously flawed. Have you seen the show the ancient aliens? They always begin something like “No one knows exactly how the Egyptians built the pyradims, some say with lots of labor, others say with clever engineering, but a few ancient alien theorists claim its aliens who did. Therefore aliens built the praymids and we will ignore the other hypothesises for the rest of the show.”
That’s pretty much what I do with scripture. I fully admit there are many interprations of each story but I say this gnostic or other esoteric one is out there and it’s really cool, so we are going to run with and accept it as valid. It does make reading the Bible a lot of fun and it’s great way to stump bible studies or your pastor, but it’s not exactly logical.

Yes, your reasoning is bad, just as you admit.

Now the church does this all the time too, they say we have one (or maybe a handful) of interprations of the text (out of dozens of ways it’s been intrepreted thru history) and they only ever pay attention to the authorized ones because of apostolic succession. They do this with the biblical cannon. An orthodox theologican doesn’t even care what’s in the book of Enoch or the gospel of truth because it’s not cannonical.

And here your reasoning is also bad.

You say that many interpretations are possible. That is true. You say that you choose some and the Church chooses some. That is also true.

But the difference is that (as you admitted) you try to choose interpretations that are “fun”, while the Church is trying to choose interpretations that are correct.

And that single difference is sufficient: you are more likely to find interpretations that are “fun” (to you), while the Church is more likely to find interpretations that are correct.

Of course, while this point is sufficient, there are more points waiting in reserve. For example, who is more likely to know what Jesus taught - apostles, who knew Him (and bishops, whom they appointed), or Simon Magus, who did not (and quarreled with apostles instead)? Or which interpretation is confirmed by miracles and apparitions?

 

[MysticMonist]

I think orthodoxy depends on a literalistic view of the gospel story. You talk about interprations being correct. Elaine Pagels has a fantastic insight that I suspect you’d agree with. The church of the Creeds believes in a physcial, literal resurrection of the literal God incarnated in physcial man, Jesus. Gnostics not so much and their beliefs are more myths and metaphors that point to truths that are beyond literal truth or falsehood.
So I was being tongue and cheek when I said fun interprations, though they are a blast. More accurately I would say useful or illuminating.
Perhaps a solution to my reasoning is to that to say the gnositic interpations are illuminating and useful to us, which isn’t to say traditonal interprations aren’t illuminating and useful to you. In fact, they aren’t mutually exclusive and some orthodox things may be helpful in a gnositic practice

 

[MPat]

So I was being tongue and cheek when I said fun interprations, though they are a blast. More accurately I would say useful or illuminating.

That doesn’t change much.

The Church is looking for interpretations that are correct. You are looking for other interpretations - the ones that are “fun”, “illuminating”, “useful”, the ones you like in some way.

Naturally, both sides are likely to have more success in achieving the chosen goal than the other one. Therefore, the Church is more likely to be right than you.

Perhaps a solution to my reasoning is to that to say the gnositic interpations are illuminating and useful to us,

There is a joke where a poet asks if he should put more fire into his poems, and is told that he should put more of his poems into the fire instead.

If you found out your reasoning is silly, the right solution is not to look for ways to feel good about it anyway, but to abandon it.

 

[Frankie65]

Gnosticism is heresy.
St Irenaeus, 1st Century AD

 

[Dan_Defender]

If I recall correctly, gnostics believe matter is evil, so one can do anything one wants with one’s body, including killing it to release the soul from its imprisonment. Very unchristian.

 

[annem]

. Elaine Pagels has a fantastic insight that I suspect you’d agree with.

Pagels, an atheist, detests Christianity. She can bear a mangled version of it in some sects of Gnosticism, so long as it has none of that annoying stuff about sin and truth and right and wrong.

Many of the Gnostic sects were about worshiping yourself. They believed that God the Father was evil, the ultimate evil, in just about every Gnostic school, but that you yourself could become a god.

I’ve often wondered if this belief wasn’t appealing to Pagels. She doesn’t mention it in her book on the subject.

“I think orthodoxy depends on a literalistic view of the gospel story.”

Sorry, you are thinking about various modern versions of Protestantism. When Marcion gifted the church with a fabulous sum of money - about 140 AD - , the early Catholic church rejected it, and Marcion, and called him a heretic because he believed in a literal interpretation of scripture. Which would have contradicted Paul, who introduced typology into the very first Christian documents.

 

[Scott84]

Gnostic Christianity is heretical.

They (Gnostics) believed Christ’s body wasn’t real and physical, but only “seemed” to be physical.

They had a very inward thinking philosophy that is contrary to the Church.

They also believe in awakening the “inner god” within you. To this end they also practiced very bizarre (and sinful) sex rituals, such as mixing a woman’s menstrual blood with semen and eating it (gross!).

If you look at the practice of early Gnostic Christians and what they believed, it’s not hard to see why the Church declared them heretics.

 

[MysticMonist]

I appreciate your response. I agree with your analysis of Pagels. She is not a practicing gnostic by any means and to some degree uses Gnosticism to attack orthodox Christanity.

I also think maybe you get the spirit of Gnosis more than others and perhaps many scholars.
Indeed “God the Father” is sometimes the Demiurge. Often the church (or any religion) confuses the externals of faith with being in the real divine presence. Also the world is full of Archons, beings or archetypes that exist in both spirtual and social/pyschological levels that try to run the very rigged show. So the God the Father is sometimes the Rex Mundi, God of the World, as the cathars would say.
“You yourself become a God” well sure, or at least realize the divinity already within us. It is something that avoids strict definition, but this is Gnosis, realizing ones true nature and recieve liberation.
Here is a really neat quote in the Acts of Thomas
“I am not Jesus, but I am his servant: I am not Christ, but I am his minister; I am not the Son of God, but I pray to become worthy of God.”
I think the emphasis on being the servant and the minister and being worthy, as a fundamentally mystical practice, Gnosticism doesn’t imagine an uncrossable chasm between us and God. Rather the Living Christ is full accessible. We don’t look for the Living amoung the dead, but know that Christ has burst open the gates in the heavens and thrown the corrupt powers in disarray making a way for us. We can find that wisdom and liberation in this present moment.

Its much more than gnostics just believe matter is evil or that YHVH is a bad guy. That’s taking it too literally and the gnositic myths are myths, no sane person would ever take them literally

 

[MysticMonist]

Everyone always comes back to the cakes of light. Hahaha. Aliester Crowley is to thank for that, it is mentioned in writings about Simon Magus but its rather obscure and Simon is very challenging material. It’s very possible it was anti-simonian proganda just like Jews eat babies was talked about in the medieval ages. But Simon’s stuff is out there its possible it’s legit. either way I wouldn’t advise anyone to do his practices cook book style.

 

[MysticMonist]

Okay many Gnostics were strong ascetics, particularly the cathars who we know more about their practices and even their enemies spoke positively about their simple and humble lifestyle. If your body is evil, a gross oversimplification, then you want to try to resist it’s attractions and influence not indulge it’s every whim.
As far as killing oneself or others, it’s actually orthodox Christians who were more willing to be matrys throwing their lives away and also who murdered others for faith, more than Gnostics. Pagels talks alot about the differing views on martyrdom. And cathars never burned any Catholics at the stake.

Actually this raises a question for anyone, what type of persuction did the 1st-4th century heretics face? I know people like iraneus wanted them kicked out of the congregation and creeds declared them damned. Christian mobs would murder pagans sometimes with bishops looking on. But there wasn’t an organized murder or inquistion of heretics in the early church, right? Just ostraziation and maybe getting the Romans to eventually outlaw them?

 

[Frankie65]

Everyone always comes back to the cakes of light. Hahaha. Aliester Crowley is to thank for that, it is mentioned in writings about Simon Magus but its rather obscure and Simon is very challenging material. It’s very possible it was anti-simonian proganda just like Jews eat babies was talked about in the medieval ages. But Simon’s stuff is out there its possible it’s legit. either way I wouldn’t advise anyone to do his practices cook book style

Gnosticism is heresy.
It will lead you into hell.
Promote and defend it all you like.
It will still lead you into hell and anyone whom you manage to convince.
Repent, ask forgiveness of Jesus whom your beliefs offend and insult

 

[MysticMonist]

You are right that the ethophians do include Enoch in thier cannon. There are multiple references to Enoch in the Bible, it’s always funny to watch evangelical Protestants try to explain that one away.

I doubt anyone here will disagree with me, but the gospel of Thomas should definitely be cannon. It isn’t neccesarily a gnositic text, it depends how you interpet it. I find Paul to be very gnostic, because likely he was writing to a mixed audience of early Gnostics and proto-orthodox while Paul himself is neither.

If you like non-cannonical texts, while all gnostic texts are interesting, I use the gospel of Thomas, book of Thomas the contender, acts of Thomas, Pistis Sophia and the books of Jeu as my main source of teachings and practices.

 

[MysticMonist]

That’s a fantastic website, thanks!
I put the value of myth or symbol over historicity and I value direct, personal experience over apostolic authority. So the arguments about Gnosticism being heresy or being later in time than the gospels really isn’t a big deal.
Its pretty easy to establish that since the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry, whoever he was and whatever he taught, there are traditions who have interpreted this esoterically and mystically rather than literal and doctrinal. The simonians were probably the first, maybe the ebonities. And Paul references a group that venerated angels more than he felt was proper. “Christianty” from it’s very beginning has always been very diverse and continues to be. You can’t say Mormons and Quakers aren’t Christian by defining being Christian as not following the creeds that were never agreed upon to begin with. Its a circular argument.
Its really interesting that the dating of the book of Thomas the contender and the acts of Thomas is in the 200s and due to the same themes and language used in those texts as the gospel of Thomas, that there was. A gnositic, Thomasine community existing for several generations.
The apocyplse of Thomas is very different, and likely isn’t related except in name, but it’s still cool and I appreciate your help in discovering it.

 

[Thom18]

Gnosticsm is very much about Christ. Arguably a pretty different version of Christ and a different interpration of what His salvation or gospel means.
Yet it is an ancient interpration, as old as Simon Magus.
The ad banner above happened to say “finding the real Jesus amoung imposters”. That’s very fitting. Its an excellent question, who is the real Jesus, who is the real God?

And only His Church, His Bride, can accurately say who He is. Gnostics separated themselves from the Church and its proper understandings, so you do not have a proper understanding of Him.

 

[MPat]

I put the value of myth or symbol over historicity and I value direct, personal experience over apostolic authority. So the arguments about Gnosticism being heresy or being later in time than the gospels really isn’t a big deal.

So, you are ready for the case where you come to judge the living and dead.

But what if anyone else comes to do that?

In such case, wouldn’t what He values be a bit more important, than what you value?

 

[TheBomb.Com]

I’m reading “Four Witnesses” currently, and I am now reading about Gnosticism. Do you really believe the claims of Simon Magus, whom Peter personally rebuked?

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

it’s great way to stump bible studies or your pastor,

I never understood why people think they’ve gained some kind of victory because they “stumped” their pastor (in real life this actually rarely happens, but it’s a fun fantasy for some folks…I guess?)

It seems like feverishly trying to prove you’re the smartest person in the room is the opposite of humility and definitely not Christlike.