Who were the Gnostics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jimmy_B

Guest
**Who were the Gnostics? **
I recently read an article in the paper, by John Van Huizum, titled “Seek and You Shall Find” where he wrote, among other things,
**"…the Gnostics were the prominent Christians during the first three centuries A.D., apposing authority of any kind, but hungry for real knowledge. They were effectively thrown out by an authoritarian Roman church." **
Click to expand...
He went on to write,
**“They took turns presiding at meetings to demonstrate their equality, making no difference between man and women. Unlike the later Roman church, they had no sexual hang-ups.” **
Click to expand...
And,
**"… the Roman church was not interested in knowledge… even though they give lip service to evolution. See how long it took them to finally recognize Galileo’s knowledge." **
Click to expand...
I don’t know where Van Huizum is coming from. Is he Gnostic, Atheist or simply, anti-Catholic? He doesn’t say.

He didn’t source any of his information, so It’s difficult for me to respond to his article. Although, at first blush, it doesn’t appear that he has done very much research into Gnosticism. If his comments look familiar to you, please tell me where they came from. What is his source(s)?

This appears to be the same kind of poorly sourced information that I’ve seen on some cable-TV programs. I would like to respond in an Op-Ed, using credible sources. Any help here is appreciated. Please source your information though.

Here is a youtube video with John Van Huizum describing his newspaper articles on religion -
He “welcomes feedback to his published articles”. I would like to do just that.

Who were the Gnostics?
**Your thoughts? **
 
He didn’t source any of his information, so It’s difficult for me to respond to his article
Click to expand...
This is key. When I read such material and no sound references are made to back up claims or charges,then it is nothing more than a biased commentary.
 
There were no “monolithic” Gnostic organization…most Gnostics worshipped along side the proto-catholic/orthodox Christians. Gnosticism was varied in it’s mythology. It developed side by side with “orthodoxy” and other groups that the prevailing group which became the dominant form of Christian worship and thought, decreed “heretical”.
 
Gnosticism, which was influenced by Neo-Platonic philosophy, was broad in both definition and practice. But several key tenets are worth mentioning: (1) rejection of the goodness of creation, (2) several divinities emanating from the highest god (a kind of polytheism), (3) creation was a cosmic accident and was the product of the lowest god, (4) a claim to hidden knowledge, (5) duality between matter and spirit, with matter being evil, and (6) rejection of procreation.

Key gnostic groups include the Docetists (who denied the humanity of Christ), and the Manichaeans (who denied free will and moral responsibility).

Not all of the gnostic sects were Christian. The Christian varieties, however, were often condemned as heretical sects because they propounded Trinitarian and Christological heresies.
 
Isn’t the “Apocalypse of Adam”, or the “Gospel of Adam” (here), attributed to the early Gnostics?

The Apocalypse of Adam begins -

“Listen to my words, my son Seth. When God had created me out of the earth, along with Eve, your mother…”

I guess to one person, what they consider “hidden knowledge”, another might consider a fraud and heresy, taken from plagiarized, earlier sources.

The cable-TV shows and the author of the article described here, conveniently leave out the “Gospel of Adam”, when doing their show, or when writing their articles about the early Gnostics. I wonder why?

Perhaps my Op-Ed should consist of one question - Would you please explain the “hidden knowledge”, contained in the Apocalypse of Adam, a Gnostic Gospel? :rolleyes:
 
Nicea325 said:
This is key. When I read such material and no sound references are made to back up claims or charges,then it is nothing more than a biased commentary.
Click to expand...
Nicea325,

My friend, you’re right. Sources are not only important for people seeking the truth, they’re everything. We must always consider the source(s). I too believe that this is “nothing more than a biased commentary”.

Thank you for your post.
 
akasseb said:
Gnosticism, which was influenced by Neo-Platonic philosophy, was broad in both definition and practice. But several key tenets are worth mentioning: (1) rejection of the goodness of creation, (2) several divinities emanating from the highest god (a kind of polytheism), (3) creation was a cosmic accident and was the product of the lowest god, (4) a claim to hidden knowledge, (5) duality between matter and spirit, with matter being evil, and (6) rejection of procreation.

Key gnostic groups include the Docetists (who denied the humanity of Christ), and the Manichaeans (who denied free will and moral responsibility).

Not all of the gnostic sects were Christian. The Christian varieties, however, were often condemned as heretical sects because they propounded Trinitarian and Christological heresies.
Click to expand...
Hello akasseb,

I agree that the definition of Gnosticism is, was, has been and will continue to be, “broad in both definition and practice.” I agree with you and with the rest of your post.

Thank you for your post!
 
Publisher said:
There were no “monolithic” Gnostic organization…most Gnostics worshipped along side the proto-catholic/orthodox Christians. Gnosticism was varied in it’s mythology. It developed side by side with “orthodoxy” and other groups that the prevailing group which became the dominant form of Christian worship and thought, decreed “heretical”.
Click to expand...
Publisher,

So, you don’t agree that the,

“*Gnostics were the prominent Christians during the first three centuries A.D.”. *
*I don’t know how this author came to this conclusion. *
 
Dorothy said:
The quotes from that writer are very anti-Catholic.

At this site it tells a bit about gnosticism, just scroll down a bit.

catholic.com/library/Great_Heresies.asp

You can look up more information on the Catholic Answers site as well.
Click to expand...
Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries)
Click to expand...
“Matter is evil!” was the cry of the Gnostics. This idea was borrowed from certain Greek philosophers. It stood against Catholic teaching, not only because it contradicts Genesis 1:31 (“And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good”) and other scriptures, but because it denies the Incarnation. If matter is evil, then Jesus Christ could not be true God and true man, for Christ is in no way evil. Thus many Gnostics denied the Incarnation, claiming that Christ only appeared to be a man, but that his humanity was an illusion. Some Gnostics, recognizing that the Old Testament taught that God created matter, claimed that the God of the Jews was an evil deity who was distinct from the New Testament God of Jesus Christ. They also proposed belief in many divine beings, known as “aeons,” who mediated between man and the ultimate, unreachable God. The lowest of these aeons, the one who had contact with men, was supposed to be Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your post and link!
 
Jimmy_B said:
Publisher,

So, you don’t agree that the,

“*Gnostics were the prominent Christians during the first three centuries A.D.”. *
I don’t know how this author came to this conclusion.
Click to expand...
Weren’t they a huge heresy though? I think I read it was as large, if not larger then the Church at it’s peak. Then St. Athanasius came along and set that right 🙂
 
Trevor_Stamm said:
Weren’t they a huge heresy though? I think I read it was as large, if not larger then the Church at it’s peak. Then St. Athanasius came along and set that right 🙂
Click to expand...
Then St. Athanasius came along and set that right 👍
 
Here is a little snippet about the Nag Hammadi library.

catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/?qid=1552

For those who want to do more research at this Catholic site, just do a search on the words “Nag Hammadi library” in the upper left hand corner.

St. Iranaeus did much to refute their heresies in his large work “Against Heresies”.
 
Jimmy_B said:
Publisher,

So, you don’t agree that the,

“*Gnostics were the prominent Christians during the first three centuries A.D.”. *
I don’t know how this author came to this conclusion.
Click to expand...
The Gnostics were very much part of the history of early Christianity. They had no “central” organizational structure. The congregations were either auotonomous or as I stated earlier, they existed along side the proto-orthodox or along side one of the other “sects” of early Christianity.

Many of the Gnostics considered the teachings of Jesus consisted of “two forms”…the basic tenets that the majority of Christians embraced…ranging from in belief from “Arian” or “orthodox” that the masses were taught…and the more “spiritual gnosis” teachings that the “pneumatics” were taught. In some congregations a “proto-orthodox” Christian would worship right along side a “Gnostic” Christian and on the surface there was no discernable difference.

The various Gnostic teachers right along with the “proto-orthodox” claimed to receive their teachings directly from the apostles…Paul, Mark, Peter, Philip and John to name a few…the concept of “apostolic succession” which gained favorin the second century both among the Gnostics and more “orthodox” Christians were embraced by to bolster their claim.

I believe Valentius, a prominent Gnostic teacher was even going to be elected bishop of Rome at one point.

Ignatius was the “chief” opponent of Gnosticism in the 2nd century and through him the proto-orthodox/catholic groups began consolidating and joining congregations together as “orthodox/catholic” Christianity began assserting it’s influence as Gnostic teachers were identified…for a time one of the bishops of Rome…Eluetherus (sp) ebraced gnosticism for a time…but I believe it was Iranaeus a disciple of Polycarp won him back to “orthodox” teachings…

The struggle for dominance between the factions and sects of Christianity took place in the 2nd and 3rd centuries…by the time Constantine became emperor he saw in Christianity a tool of great political gain if used…he had a ready made network of bishops that kept contact with each other throughout the empire…this network of bishops that embraced “orthodox” Christian teachings eventually became the dominant form of Christian belief…not the only form…but the dominant form…we are their heirs today.

Groups named “heretical” by the “proto-orthodox-catholic” group existed for quite some time through out the Empire…the Gnostics that eventually became known as the Cathars were one such group the organizational church of the 13th century eradicated…

Various sects and groups of Christianity existed centuries after the Orthodox/Catholic groups joined over time under the protection of the state…“heretical groups” were not uncommon…in the 2nd century there were areas in Asia Minor and Egypt where the only Christianity known was of one “heretical” brand or another.
 
You cannot verify they were **the prominent ** Christians. You would hard pressed to disprove it either. Not enough information. Had to interupt…carry on.
 
Jimmy_B said:
**Who were the Gnostics? **
I recently read an article in the paper, by John Van Huizum, titled “Seek and You Shall Find” where he wrote, among other things,
He went on to write,
And,

I don’t know where Van Huizum is coming from. Is he Gnostic, Atheist or simply, anti-Catholic? He doesn’t say.

He didn’t source any of his information, so It’s difficult for me to respond to his article. Although, at first blush, it doesn’t appear that he has done very much research into Gnosticism. If his comments look familiar to you, please tell me where they came from. What is his source(s)?

This appears to be the same kind of poorly sourced information that I’ve seen on some cable-TV programs. I would like to respond in an Op-Ed, using credible sources. Any help here is appreciated. Please source your information though.

Here is a youtube video with John Van Huizum describing his newspaper articles on religion -
He “welcomes feedback to his published articles”. I would like to do just that.

Who were the Gnostics?

**Your thoughts? **
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top