|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:31 am
It's Robbie back again with my classic thread, "Ask a Gnostic". Here I will answer questions about gnosticism.
Now what I am talking about when I say Christian gnostic are pre-Nicene sects of Christianity that are distinguished by a distinction between God and Creator and believe in salvation by gnosis.
Modern Christian Gnosticism are those that are reconstructions of those sects or are inspired-reconstructions of said sects. Though the definition of Gnostic is a bit narrow it is being defined as such to keep focus of what is being addressed in this thread.
So ask away.
Disclaimer: I am no expert or historian but am fairly knowledgeable about general Gnosticism. I will answer questions the best I can but will not say I have all the answers regarding this religion.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:35 pm
What is "salvation by gnosis"? And what is "pre-Nicene"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:48 am
Where as most versions of Christianity teach that one is saved by faith, Gnosticism teaches that we are saved by Gnosis. Gnosis is a Greek word meaning knowledge but it is a type of knowledge gained through experience. Faith is still a big part of Gnosticism since its a first step. One has to have faith that such an experience is out there and that the techniques to having such an experience is described in scripture but gnosis is what Gnostics believe will bring us to God.
A Gnostic basically seeks a specific type of gnosis, this gnosis can best be described as experiencing God directly. When this happens one no longer just believes in or knows about God but literally knows of God. Such experiences can be verified by examining the NT scripture or the rejected scripture in the Nag Hammadi Library.
Pre-Nicene basically means before the 1st Council of Nicene. It was at this council in 325 CE when Christianity finally began codifying an orthodoxy. Before this time, Christianity was very diverse in their beliefs and no two Churches could agree to anything. Kinda similar to today but more diverse level since the only thing really uniting them was that Jesus was central to their religion. It was from this council that we get the Nicene Creed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:20 am
There are three books of the NT that my sect explicitly rejects. 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. My sect rejects these as scripture because 1. they weren't written by Paul, 2. They were added as an underhanded way to counter the Marcion movement (Paul's letters made up a majority of the canon that Marcion used), and 3. They were used to basically discredit any other movement that disagreed with the developing proto-orthodoxy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:54 am
Wow, I have just found out a Czech site [with a lot of Slovak texts but that's understandable quite well to Czechs] that among other things has texts on these topics. From the links you had given me earlier I was rather confused but it's much better now when it's in my language XD [it's gnosis9.net; there are also various other topics besides religion/Christianity. I guess you could use the google translator for it to see it in English but I don't know how accurate it will be; and it doesn't help that some texts are in Czech and some in Slovak]. Now a lot of things make more sense. O__o I'm surely going to study it more. One of the articles is also about how the canon was formed and why some of the books are considered unauthentic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:52 am
Ametrin Wow, I have just found out a Czech site [with a lot of Slovak texts but that's understandable quite well to Czechs] that among other things has texts on these topics. From the links you had given me earlier I was rather confused but it's much better now when it's in my language XD [it's gnosis9.net; there are also various other topics besides religion/Christianity. I guess you could use the google translator for it to see it in English but I don't know how accurate it will be; and it doesn't help that some texts are in Czech and some in Slovak]. Now a lot of things make more sense. O__o I'm surely going to study it more. One of the articles is also about how the canon was formed and why some of the books are considered unauthentic. I can't read the site so I can't tell if it's a good source or not, but I'm glad you could find the text in your native language. If you would like we could compare points. The main reason I know most of the Nag Hammadi texts were not included involve theological issues such as the nature of Christ, Christ's purpose, what God Christ followed, the relationship between God and the world, who made up the Godhead, etc. The other, lesser point was that many of them are dated around the mid 2nd century or later. Thomas is the most disputable of the rejected texts ranging from 50 CE to 140 CE (Source). The final point and the least of all was lack of common usage. Some of these texts only were used by a few Churches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 7:45 am
I had kind of forgotten of this thread. O_o But now again there are some things I'd like to know.
Could you explain why the Creator and the real God are supposedly different beings? I don't understand how anything in the bible could support it and it seems to me to be a speculation without much basis. Would that mean that Jesus preached about another god than the god of the Jewish tradition? But he was raised in the Jewish tradition, took part in the gatherings, quoted the OT scripture. He didn't come with an entirely new religion; what he was teaching was still within the Jewish tradition but he wanted to clarify things and show people the deeper meanings behind their original tradition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 9:33 am
Ametrin Could you explain why the Creator and the real God are supposedly different beings? The idea is that the the Creator is basically and image or a person's projection of God. He's basically a collection of ideas and beliefs that people want God to be. This concept is seen in On The Origin of the World, The Hypostasis of the Archons, and we also see hints of a Gnostic Cosmology given in the 1st Chapter of John. Quote: I don't understand how anything in the bible could support it and it seems to me to be a speculation without much basis. Compare the nature of the God of the Old Testament with the God Christ speaks about. The God spoken of in the Old Testament, YHVH, played favorites, YHVH commanded his followers to kill in his name, YHVH didn't want his Chosen people to mix with the Gentiles. Christ's God was universal, Christ's God did not command his followers to kill in his name, Christ's God had no problem with his followers mixing with Gentiles. Quote: Would that mean that Jesus preached about another god than the god of the Jewish tradition? That or he was correcting and remind his followers of who God really was. YHVH as described in much of the Old Testament scripture was quite blood thirsty. Quote: But he was raised in the Jewish tradition, took part in the gatherings, quoted the OT scripture. He was also a gap in his history namely from 12 till when he started his ministry around 32 or such. He could have had a new revelation or been exposed to Gentile philosophy during this time. Quote: He didn't come with an entirely new religion; what he was teaching was still within the Jewish tradition but he wanted to clarify things and show people the deeper meanings behind their original tradition. You're probably right on this but if this is the case then this excludes Gentiles from worshiping and participating in this Jewish religion. If anything it would be the sects labeled as Gnostic would be strands of Christianity based on Paul's teachings of Christ since Paul was more than willing to include Gentiles within this religion (based on what scripture we have). We know this is counter to James's and Peter's stance to keep Christ's teachings within the Jewish framework. If you look at Galatians 2 we can see this debate as recounted by Paul Galatians 2 1Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. 3Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you. 6As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message. 7On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. 8For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. 10All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. It sums up to basically, "You do your thing, we'll do ours, just don't ******** things up by including the Gentiles, alright Paul?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 9:57 am
Yeah it's true about the differences in the OT and NT and their views on God.
But would that mean that God never revealed himself to people in the times of the OT? How to explain their supposed experience with him there [when God spoke to people so many times, directly or through angels or prophets]?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:10 am
Ametrin Yeah it's true about the differences in the OT and NT and their views on God. But would that mean that God never revealed himself to people in the times of the OT? How to explain their supposed experience with him there [when God spoke to people so many times, directly or through angels or prophets]? John 1 16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.Note also that in Christian theology, the Law does not save anyone one, one is saved by Grace. Laws of Moses = Death, Grace and Truth = Life. The Old testament was very much about following the Laws of Moses John 6 43"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." Also note in 49-51, the implied duality here, bread of the from the Demiurge vs bread from the Father. The God of Moses does not save you from death is being implied here. 2 Corinthians 11 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve. Just for kicks and giggles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:24 am
Interesting views and I don't know if it may be true but quite plausible to me because it's really difficult to swallow the presentation of the OT God [even after I've been a Christian for many years]. xd
Do you actually also read the OT or rather do you believe it doesn't have any value?
Lately I've been pondering about an idea that real God indeed is something greater that what is generally known from religions [but that doesn't have to exlude the existence of other spiritual beings/gods if you want], with love and acceptance that isn't limited or conditional.
[gotta quit for now, but see you on another day again. smile ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:54 am
Ametrin Interesting views and I don't know if it may be true but quite plausible to me because it's really difficult to swallow the presentation of the OT God [even after I've been a Christian for many years]. xd Fair enough and you're not alone in that sentiment, Gnosticism was "ragged" on back in it's day. It was through this understanding that I was able to consider going back to Christianity. Quote: Do you actually also read the OT or rather do you believe it doesn't have any value? We use the OT when necessary as a historic text and it's few pearls of wisdom it has. Also I have to examine it from a Jewish/Hebrew perspective rather than a Judeo-Christian perspective to get benefit from it. Being able to jump perspectives is very critical so one doesn't "add to scripture". Though since I'm not Jewish, I use it when I need to such as allusions to it in the the New Testament and Nag Hammadi Scripture. Quote: Lately I've been pondering about an idea that real God indeed is something greater that what is generally known from religions [but that doesn't have to exlude the existence of other spiritual beings/gods if you want], with love and acceptance that isn't limited or conditional. [gotta quit for now, but see you on another day again. smile ] Quite alright. I think my views might be rubbing off on you razz . If you are interested, check out the link in my signature. My Gnostic Church, Alpha & Omega is having an open mic/open discussion on Gnosticism on July 4, 2010 at 9 am CST over Skype. You alright more than welcome to join in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 7:28 am
Hmm... I read in a magazine about books that may be interesting so I've just ordered them from a library [in this library we order them in an online catalogue and later come to pick them up because the amount of books is huge there and they have them in storages]. About C.G. Jung and gnosticism: "The Gnostic Jung and the Seven Sermons to the Dead" and "Jung and the Lost Gospels".
In general I don't find in the OT much to relate to spiritually; for Christians it's useful to know for historical and cultural reference but I find passages that can be inspiring to us nowadays maybe only in: Psalms, proverbs and the prophets [which are difficult though because in the prophets there are passages of which I don't know what they're referring to: something from the ancient history? Or something that hasn't come yet? But they have some nice passages too].
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 12:19 am
The book "The Gnostic Jung and the Seven Sermons to the Dead" [by S. A. Hoeller] is fascinating. o_O So was Jung, no doubt of it.
I have another question, what do you believe about life after death?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 2:17 am
Ametrin The book "The Gnostic Jung and the Seven Sermons to the Dead" [by S. A. Hoeller] is fascinating. o_O So was Jung, no doubt of it. Cool biggrin Quote: I have another question, what do you believe about life after death? I'm agnostic about this but I believe this based on studies from what my religion teaches. With gnosis from the Christ spirit, at death one will be able to enter the Pleroma and enter into the fullness. Without that gnosis you stay in the Material realm. Now what that means to stay in the material realm, I'm unclear on but I tend to believe in a system of Reincarnation or some system that moves souls the appropriate locale in the various "material heavens". As for those that don't wish to remain dead and have no afterlife there seems to be support that this is available to those individuals in the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter. Other than believers going to the Father, it's rather vague on what happens to everyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
