[Gnosticism] Resident Gnostic [Archive]

James the Persian

10-03-2007, 11:54 AM

Well, I'm not asking to take communion, but I would light a candle if I had the option.

Nobody will complain if you light candles. Most of my visitors have done it. Nobody would object if you did join in with the Liturgy either or even if you were to go up and receive a blessing from the priest at the end. You couldn't go up and take the Eucharist (which is about the only thing I'd be concerned about), but I think you know that.

I understand that Gnostic teachings aren't acceptable at any Church, but I'm not exactly going there to preach my gospel or anything. I'm visiting inside services. I haven't decided if I want to say the prayers with everyone else, in any case, I think they'd allow me to "pray" on my own during the service if I felt so inclined. They haven't asked me about it yet.

I'm surprised nobody's asked you. Is it mostly an ethnic parish or do they have many converts? I've heard stories of ethnic parishes which aren't too curious about newcomers (to put it mildly) but have never come across one myself. My usual experience, when it comes to strange faces, is to see a gaggle of old ladies converge on them from all directions as soon as they step foot through the door!

I'd suggest you be completely honest if they ask. I can't recall ever seeing anyone get the 'hard sell' and we frequently have curious Protestants turn up at our Liturgy. They won't agree with you and they will probably secretly pray for your conversion, but they certainly won't object to you praying or otherwise taking part to the degree that you are able to.

I like it so far. My Grandmother is Eastern Orthodox, so it makes me feel that Grandma is there with me. :)
None of my ancestors (so far as I know) were Orthodox and I still feel like they are there with me every time. Nowhere else other than the Orthodox Church have I ever felt so palpably to be in the presence of those who have passed on. We really do feel that in the Liturgy we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses. It's precisely that lack of a disjunct between Church Militant and Church Triumphant that is, for me, one of the most important reasons for being Orthodox. I'm glad you like the Liturgy and I sincerely hope you can get to a Paschal Liturgy when the time comes. Nothing beats that - and then there's the food afterwards. When we break a fast, we really break a fast!

James

Adventus

10-03-2007, 12:10 PM

James the Persian

10-03-2007, 12:15 PM

What different worlds eh? In the region of the US where I live (and I'm sure Ashley as well) it's all ethnic. Finding a "Greek" Catholic Church or any other ethnicity is actually hard to find.

The parish I go has Irish, Mexicans, Africans, Germans, Filipino's, Taiwanese, to name a few...

There is just no ethnic identity. Even those that do claim to be "Russian" or "Greek" have a bit a of mix.

Hope you don't mind me chiming in Ash...

That's as may be, but I'm in the UK and here there's a decided tendency for Orthodox churches to have been set up by a particular ethnicity. It's actually pretty rare to find non-ethnic members in many parishes. I know that the same is true in at least some areas of the US because I keep hearing as much from Americans online - they're the ones that have told me of the less than friendly parishes!

James

Buttons*

10-03-2007, 08:42 PM

I'm surprised nobody's asked you. Is it mostly an ethnic parish or do they have many converts? I've heard stories of ethnic parishes which aren't too curious about newcomers (to put it mildly) but have never come across one myself. My usual experience, when it comes to strange faces, is to see a gaggle of old ladies converge on them from all directions as soon as they step foot through the door! To tell the truth, I haven't exactly been approachable. I'm a bit shy and sit in the back. I'm sure that the more I attend, the more they'll pounce and ask, "Who are you?"

I'd suggest you be completely honest if they ask. I can't recall ever seeing anyone get the 'hard sell' and we frequently have curious Protestants turn up at our Liturgy. They won't agree with you and they will probably secretly pray for your conversion, but they certainly won't object to you praying or otherwise taking part to the degree that you are able to. Believe me, I have no intention to lie about my beliefs. I think a simple, "I love Orthodox Churches" would suffice. Well, this is where we get to see if they're truly Christian or if they're just there for the gossip. It'll be alright in either case. I'm not attempting to be the most popular kid there. :)

None of my ancestors (so far as I know) were Orthodox and I still feel like they are there with me every time. Nowhere else other than the Orthodox Church have I ever felt so palpably to be in the presence of those who have passed on. We really do feel that in the Liturgy we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses. It's precisely that lack of a disjunct between Church Militant and Church Triumphant that is, for me, one of the most important reasons for being Orthodox. I'm glad you like the Liturgy and I sincerely hope you can get to a Paschal Liturgy when the time comes. Nothing beats that - and then there's the food afterwards. When we break a fast, we really break a fast!

James

It's truly beautiful. I feel something wonderful inside when I've ever attended Orthodox or Catholic services.... except for that one time where the Catholic service was in a regular building. Somehow, the "magic" is taken away if I don't see stained glass and wood pews. I'm not really a fan of modern Christianity.

Thank you James :)

Buttons*

10-03-2007, 08:45 PM

What different worlds eh? In the region of the US where I live (and I'm sure Ashley as well) it's all ethnic. Finding a "Greek" Catholic Church or any other ethnicity is actually hard to find.
Well, I don't exactly look Greek, but I'm Romanian. No one bothered my Grandma when she attended the Greek Orthodox Church in Hawaii. Honestly, I dont think it's strictly for any ethnicity, but that remains to be seen.

The parish I go has Irish, Mexicans, Africans, Germans, Filipino's, Taiwanese, to name a few...

There is just no ethnic identity. Even those that do claim to be "Russian" or "Greek" have a bit a of mix.

Hope you don't mind me chiming in Ash...
In the states, I like to think everyone is a bit of a mutt :D

I don't mind at all :) Thanks Vic

Buttercup

10-08-2007, 03:22 AM

Somehow, the "magic" is taken away if I don't see stained glass and wood pews. I'm not really a fan of modern Christianity.
It seems one of the reasons you attend church is because of the surrounding beauty of the building and perhaps simply being in the presence of others while they are worshipping?

Have you tried meditating outside by yourself in a place you feel comfortable and think is beautiful? It takes a bit more discipline to calm yourself and empty your thoughts to allow serenity to wash over and give you a sense of renewal but, it's worth it.

Buttons*

10-14-2007, 03:08 PM

It seems one of the reasons you attend church is because of the surrounding beauty of the building and perhaps simply being in the presence of others while they are worshipping?

Have you tried meditating outside by yourself in a place you feel comfortable and think is beautiful? It takes a bit more discipline to calm yourself and empty your thoughts to allow serenity to wash over and give you a sense of renewal but, it's worth it.

It really does, I dont think i'm quite at that point yet. :) But once I'm more centered I'll try chilling with nature :cloud9:

lilithu

10-14-2007, 06:51 PM

The parish I go has Irish, Mexicans, Africans, Germans, Filipino's, Taiwanese, to name a few...

There is just no ethnic identity. Even those that do claim to be "Russian" or "Greek" have a bit a of mix.In the states, I like to think everyone is a bit of a mutt :DI don't think the more recent immigrants would agree with that. ;)

People who come to (or are born in) the U.S. tend to lose their ethnic identity but gain a racial identity. Keeping the former would be preferable imo.

Anyway Ash, when did you first hear about Gnosticism and what attracted you to it? Were you of a different religious background before? When you're not attending the Orthodox church what else do you do for spiritual practice? :)

Buttons*

10-14-2007, 07:26 PM

Anyway Ash, when did you first hear about Gnosticism and what attracted you to it? Were you of a different religious background before? When you're not attending the Orthodox church what else do you do for spiritual practice? :)

If ya really wanna know :)

I had been having questions about my beliefs. I had been talking with other people of other faiths and seen that not everyone had to be Christian to be a good person, but from the Christian perspective I had... being Christian was the only way. Anyone else was a sinner. This caused much grief, since the Christians I knew were all hypocritical anyway.

At the Non-Denom. Christian school I was attending at the time, they taught Bible, but could never answer the questions I asked about religion. Because I didn't just believe everything anyone said, I was labeled agnostic and kind of outcast from the other kids. I was the only person at my school not doing drugs, having sex, or drinking at age 16; and the kicker is, I was the only non Christian. I thought it was completely hypocritical of them to be doing this when every day of the week, they were giving testamonies. I wasn't going to be Christian and lump myself in with them. Now that I look back, I realize this wasn't the best way to look at things, but then again, it led me to where I am now... so I can't complain. :D

While I was at the college, we went into the Notre Dame book store. I had decided, earlier in the year, that I wanted to study philosophy. I wound up looking in the bookstore at Notre Dame and found two a book by Jacob Needleman. It was called the "Heart of Philosophy" and I thought, "What a great way to start!" In the book, there were many Gnostic references to various things. I completely understood what he was saying, something totally new for me.

I went looking at Barnes and Noble book stores in the religious section because I wanted to see what else was out there, or if there was something that every faith had in common. Something that was basic to humanity, so I could show everyone else that different beliefs weren't bad, or even all that different.

I happened upon the "Spirituality" section where I saw a book titled, "The Lost Gospels of Jesus." I was gravitating from Christianity, so I wanted to see what this was all about. The book opened my eyes to this version of history where Gnostics were the closest it came to Yeshua's teachings. Not only that, but there were other books of the Bible that had been thrown out! I had to investigate. At the time I didn't identify as Gnostic because I hadn't read any of the texts. The book gave another possibility, that Yeshua was a myth, and that everything Biblical was actually allegorical. This fit my beliefs perfectly! I had to know more about this!

I read that book a few more times before I moved on and found, "the Gospel of Mary with a forward by Jacob Needleman." After reading it, I knew in my soul that I was meant to be Gnostic. That a fire had been lit within me that hadn't existed for years.

Buttons*

10-14-2007, 07:28 PM

When you're not attending the Orthodox church what else do you do for spiritual practice? :)

Meditate :)

I'm not sure of anything else to really do.... lol. I never met another gnostic, so I just do what feels natural.

lilithu

10-14-2007, 07:42 PM

While I was at the college, we went into the Notre Dame book store. I had decided, earlier in the year, that I wanted to study philosophy. I wound up looking in the bookstore at Notre Dame and found two a book by Jacob Needleman. It was called the "Heart of Philosophy" and I thought, "What a great way to start!" In the book, there were many Gnostic references to various things. I completely understood what he was saying, something totally new for me.

I went looking at Barnes and Noble book stores in the religious section because I wanted to see what else was out there, or if there was something that every faith had in common. Something that was basic to humanity, so I could show everyone else that different beliefs weren't bad, or even all that different.

I happened upon the "Spirituality" section where I saw a book titled, "The Lost Gospels of Jesus." I was gravitating from Christianity, so I wanted to see what this was all about. The book opened my eyes to this version of history where Gnostics were the closest it came to Yeshua's teachings. Not only that, but there were other books of the Bible that had been thrown out! I had to investigate. At the time I didn't identify as Gnostic because I hadn't read any of the texts. The book gave another possibility, that Yeshua was a myth, and that everything Biblical was actually allegorical. This fit my beliefs perfectly! I had to know more about this!

I read that book a few more times before I moved on and found, "the Gospel of Mary with a forward by Jacob Needleman." After reading it, I knew in my soul that I was meant to be Gnostic. That a fire had been lit within me that hadn't existed for years.Cool. Thanks. :)

One day while I was still in neurobio, a friend in the lab asked if I wanted to go with him to the SUNY campus bookstore. I was bored so, I said sure. I found a book on religion that looked interesting. And right next to it was another book that looked interesting. And right next to that was another. I realized they were part of the reading list for a class. And since I was going to read them anyway, why not audit the class? That's how I met Professor Chittick (http://www.sunysb.edu/complit/new/chittick.html). If it weren't for that it's unlikely I would have left science for religion.

So yeah, bookstores can really change your life! :)

But do all Gnostics believe that Yeshua was a myth? When I read the Gospel of Mary (and others) I didn't take it as myth. I took it as one account out of many of a personal experience with the Divine.

Buttons*

10-14-2007, 07:51 PM

One day while I was still in neurobio, a friend in the lab asked if I wanted to go with him to the SUNY campus bookstore. I was bored so, I said sure. I found a book on religion that looked interesting. And right next to it was another book that looked interesting. And right next to that was another. I realized they were part of the reading list for a class. And since I was going to read them anyway, why not audit the class? That's how I met Professor Chittick (http://www.sunysb.edu/complit/new/chittick.html). If it weren't for that it's unlikely I would have left science for religion.

So yeah, bookstores can really change your life! :) No doubt ay! Book Stores are incredible. They've changed my life for sure :)

But do all Gnostics believe that Yeshua was a myth? When I read the Gospel of Mary (and others) I didn't take it as myth. I took it as one account out of many of a personal experience with the Divine.
No, not at all. For the most part, Gnostics believe that Yeshua was a real person. I wasn't clear before... (for some reason it's getting hard for me to concentrate on what I'm saying) but I don't believe Yeshua was a myth. The book "Lost Books of Jesus" were mostly just eye-opening because they presented a mystic side to Christianity that I'd never seen before. Not to mention, myths of Dionysis and Yeshua are EXTREMELY similar, but any "good" person in those days was named a diety. :cloud9:

I took whatever they said with a grain of salt. They did have quite a lot of actual documentation to back up their claims. Like I said, I'm a skeptic, so I can't take everything they say. Being literalistic is exactly the opposite of what I wanted.

Most of the Nag Hammadi Library IS about encoutners with the Divine and all. Some of them, though, I feel are allegories for the mind. It's just an interesting way to look at it. I do feel that spark when I read them though. It's incredible clarity. :)

The thing is, it's just not literalistic. That's the most important thing to understand. I think everything else is just kind of what you choose to attatch yourself to. :shrug:

:namaste: Thanks for your questions. Honestly I didn't think you'd be that interested :) I'm not complaining though :hug:

lilithu

10-14-2007, 08:16 PM

But do all Gnostics believe that Yeshua was a myth? When I read the Gospel of Mary (and others) I didn't take it as myth. I took it as one account out of many of a personal experience with the Divine.No, not at all. For the most part, Gnostics believe that Yeshua was a real person. I wasn't clear before... (for some reason it's getting hard for me to concentrate on what I'm saying) but I don't believe Yeshua was a myth. The book "Lost Books of Jesus" were mostly just eye-opening because they presented a mystic side to Christianity that I'd never seen before. Not to mention, myths of Dionysis and Yeshua are EXTREMELY similar, but any "good" person in those days was named a diety. :cloud9:

I took whatever they said with a grain of salt. They did have quite a lot of actual documentation to back up their claims. Like I said, I'm a skeptic, so I can't take everything they say. Being literalistic is exactly the opposite of what I wanted.

Most of the Nag Hammadi Library IS about encoutners with the Divine and all. Some of them, though, I feel are allegories for the mind. It's just an interesting way to look at it. I do feel that spark when I read them though. It's incredible clarity. :)

The thing is, it's just not literalistic. That's the most important thing to understand. I think everything else is just kind of what you choose to attatch yourself to. :shrug:Gotcha and agreed. I thought you were saying that you didn't believe that Yeshua was real, and I found that surprising. (But it would of course been ok if that's what you meant.) I agree, a great deal of scripture is allegorical. I think a lot of the canonical scripture was allegorical too but many Christians lost that, unfortunately.

:namaste: Thanks for your questions. Honestly I didn't think you'd be that interested :) I'm not complaining though :hug::hug: I love the Gnostic texts! My favorite is the Gospel of Thomas.

What I'm really confused about however, is the "non-Christian" Gnostic texts. I don't understand how they integrate, if they do at all. Like how does the goddess Sophia fit into this? Or do you think she is meant to be purely allegorical?

Buttons*

10-14-2007, 08:59 PM

My favorite is the Gospel of Thomas. heehee, that's one of mine too :D

What I'm really confused about however, is the "non-Christian" Gnostic texts. I don't understand how they integrate, if they do at all. Like how does the goddess Sophia fit into this? Or do you think she is meant to be purely allegorical?
Well, Sophia = Wisdom. If you understand it as purely allegorical, then it's fitting that any time "Wisdom" is referenced, they're talking about the Goddess... (Or just a state of mind...)

Manchean Literature is in my copy of the Nag Hammadi Library. In it, I just found a part that discusses the "mother of ignorance" and monsters and the like. The issue is, every culture had different names for Sophia. The basic myth is that: Out of the light came Wisdom - out of wisdom came ignorance. Ignorance is the wool over humankind's eyes. Once Sophia/Wisdom is seen, (past the Demiurge) you're closer to Gnosis/Light/One Conciousness/Tao.... whatever.

Naturally Gnostic literature was written as dualistic, but I honestly believe that it's only there to show balance, not to divide. Does that help at all? I'm sorry my mind's a bit foggy.

lilithu

10-14-2007, 09:29 PM

What I'm really confused about however, is the "non-Christian" Gnostic texts. I don't understand how they integrate, if they do at all. Like how does the goddess Sophia fit into this? Or do you think she is meant to be purely allegorical?Well, Sophia = Wisdom. If you understand it as purely allegorical, then it's fitting that any time "Wisdom" is referenced, they're talking about the Goddess... (Or just a state of mind...)

Manchean Literature is in my copy of the Nag Hammadi Library. In it, I just found a part that discusses the "mother of ignorance" and monsters and the like. The issue is, every culture had different names for Sophia. The basic myth is that: Out of the light came Wisdom - out of wisdom came ignorance. Ignorance is the wool over humankind's eyes. Once Sophia/Wisdom is seen, (past the Demiurge) you're closer to Gnosis/Light/One Conciousness/Tao.... whatever.So Ignorance is born out of Wisdom? Interesting.

Would you happen to know what the relationship was between the Gnostics and the Hebrew scriptures? The reason why I ask is because there are references in the Hebrew scriptures to Wisdom (I'm thinking specifically of Job) as if she were a goddess.

Also, the first time I ever heard of Lilith was through a Gnosticism website (The Lilith Myth (http://www.gnosis.org/lilith.htm)), which was very cool but I never really understood how the Lilith myth fit into the Gnostic worldview.

Naturally Gnostic literature was written as dualistic, but I honestly believe that it's only there to show balance, not to divide. Does that help at all? I'm sorry my mind's a bit foggy.That's the same with the Tao. :) There is light and dark but it's not meant to be taken as good and evil. There is balance.

And you don't seem foggy-headed to me. :)

Buttons*

10-14-2007, 10:07 PM

So Ignorance is born out of Wisdom? Interesting.

In sort of a twisted way it makes sense. Gnostics like to flip the world upside down. Anyway, if you think about it... when you start understanding things, and claim yourself "Wise"... that's when you become the most ignorant of other things. Basically, close your mind = stunted growth of wisdom. Once the questioning part of you is gone... there aint that much depth left. (From my own experience, I see this to be pretty accurate.) Think of Socrates, and how he questioned men who believed themselves to be wise. Ignorance was born of their arrogance. :) The basic point here is humility.

Would you happen to know what the relationship was between the Gnostics and the Hebrew scriptures?
This, I don't know quite so much about. It's been a while since I looked up that correlation. I know that there was a Mystic tribe of Jews either just around or before the time of the Gnostics. Gnostic thought was probably introduced by them, and surrounding cultures, naturally. I would guess that Gnostics used ancient Hebrew myths (that either were or weren't included in the canonical texts) and just went from there. Most things back then were oral tradition, so I'm sure that by the time Hebrew myth hit the Greeks, it was a whole new barrel of cupcakes! I'll look it up later for you, though. (once my head clears)

The reason why I ask is because there are references in the Hebrew scriptures to Wisdom (I'm thinking specifically of Job) as if she were a goddess. Job was the first book of the OT that was written that we have. I think it's pretty believable to say that people were more imaginative and mythical. Jews probably were worshiping plural gods in those days. Anyone can throw poo in my direction, I don't care what ya think. ;) Sorry for upsetting anyone, that's just humanity for ya.

Also, the first time I ever heard of Lilith was through a Gnosticism website (The Lilith Myth (http://www.gnosis.org/lilith.htm)), which was very cool but I never really understood how the Lilith myth fit into the Gnostic worldview. I'm not too sure either. I haven't looked at the site yet, but I will probably tommorrow and try to tell ya what I get out of it. :)

lilithu

10-14-2007, 10:54 PM

Buttons*

10-14-2007, 11:15 PM

Oh, I agree. :yes: But then I don't consider that to be true wisdom. *sigh* tonight's not my night... What is true wisdom to you? :)

I don't really mind if it's different than mine, I just wanna be able to relate.

I think I do worship Sophia - at least I hold her reverently as this sort of inapproachable ideal. You can draw near her, dance around her, but are never quite there with her. At least not in talking. Which is why I get annoyed when people claim to have harnessed her. It's almost like sacrilege in my view. The wisest people whom I've met have never claimed to be wise. And when someone claims to be a sage or enlightened, I pretty much cross them off my list because they've defiled Sophia, lol. I view it that way too, for the most part. I've had "experiences" concerning Light, but not Sophia. Any experiences that I've ever had with her have been unexplainable. :) You know exactly what I mean by that.

The reason Light is so easy to describe is because it's a picture :p Or a glowing, and Sophia is in it - and yet she's not. In any case, I don't claim to understand her, or to have seen her. It would be incredibly humbling, I imagine.

And of course:
Jesus said, "Whoever has come to understand the world has found only a corpse, and whoever has found a corpse is superior to the world."
Thomas 42: 30-33
Naturally there's Phillip:

Light and darkness, life and death, on the right and the left,
these are children, they are inseparably together.
But the good are not good, and the wicked are not wicked,
life not life, death not death.
Each element fades into the original source.
But those who live above the world cannot fade.
They are eternal.

And
The rulers throught they had done everything
alone, but in secret
the holy spirit on her own had accomplished it all

:jump:

lilithu

10-14-2007, 11:29 PM

Oh, I agree. :yes: But then I don't consider that to be true wisdom. *sigh* tonight's not my night... What is true wisdom to you? :)

I don't really mind if it's different than mine, I just wanna be able to relate.I dunno. I think you'd have to be wise to truly know what it is. :p

I just know that claiming to understand everything and proclaiming yourself wise is not true wisdom.

"Those who speak do not know and those who know do not speak."

Naturally there's Phillip:

Light and darkness, life and death, on the right and the left,
these are children, they are inseparably together.
But the good are not good, and the wicked are not wicked,
life not life, death not death.
Each element fades into the original source.
But those who live above the world cannot fade.
They are eternal.That's the Tao. :)

And
The rulers throught they had done everything
alone, but in secret
the holy spirit on her own had accomplished it all

:jump:That's interesting. In Unitarianism when we rejected the Trinity and embraced the Unity, we basically jettisoned Father and Son and ended up with the Holy Spirit. For those of us who see God in the world, it is the Spirit moving through us that we see.

What does the Holy Spirit mean to a Gnostic? :)

jonny

10-14-2007, 11:36 PM

How do Gnostic marriages work? If you'd like, you can send me a detailed essay in a PM. ;)

Buttons*

10-14-2007, 11:40 PM

"Those who speak do not know and those who know do not speak." Heehee I get that ;)

That's the Tao. :) It's certianly similar! But I just read it out of my Nag Hammadi Bible... so this is why I'm so drawn to Taoism and the like. SUCH similar ideas, and I think it binds most faiths together. It makes me so happy. :tearsofjoy:

That's interesting. In Unitarianism when we rejected the Trinity and embraced the Unity, we basically jettisoned Father and Son and ended up with the Holy Spirit. For those of us who see God in the world, it is the Spirit moving through us that we see. I didn't know that! Yeah, I like "Holy Spirit" because it's so multi-facited in itself, and it's also one thing.... I might wind up talking in circles by the end of it. lol.

What does the Holy Spirit mean to a Gnostic? :) I can't speak for all Gnostics. Naturally, some people with Gnostic sentiment see things differently, but I believe that the Holy Spirit .... is? Sophia. Barbelo is forethought. Holy spirit to them is definatley identified as "female." This is very interesting, even if it has nothing to do with what we're talking about:

Mary and the Holy Spirit
Some say the holy spirit inseminated Mary.
They are wrong and don't know what they are saying.
When did a woman ever get a woman pregnant?
Mary is a virgin and no powers dirtied her.

The Holy Spirit
Father and son are single names.
Holy spirit is a double name and everywhere:
above and below, hidden and revealed.
The Holy Spirit lives in the revealed.
It is concealed below. It is above.

Buttons*

10-14-2007, 11:44 PM

jonny

10-15-2007, 12:15 AM

How do Gnostic marriages work? If you'd like, you can send me a detailed essay in a PM. ;)

I would my good sir. Sadly, from everything I've read, no records were kept of how Gnostics performed marriage ceremonies. :(

I'd imagine that they were similar to customs at the time. Whether they are more Pagan or Jewish, we might not ever know. *sigh* :shrug:

Hmm. I don't know for sure if they're Gnostic writings, but I know that some LDS scholars have done some research into the dead sea scrolls stuff to compare them with the current LDS wedding ceremonies. I might be able to help you out with that. :)

lilithu

10-15-2007, 12:23 AM

I can't speak for all Gnostics. Naturally, some people with Gnostic sentiment see things differently, but I believe that the Holy Spirit .... is? Sophia. Barbelo is forethought. Holy spirit to them is definatley identified as "female." This is very interesting, even if it has nothing to do with what we're talking about:

Mary and the Holy Spirit
Some say the holy spirit inseminated Mary.
They are wrong and don't know what they are saying.
When did a woman ever get a woman pregnant?
Mary is a virgin and no powers dirtied her.

The Holy Spirit
Father and son are single names.
Holy spirit is a double name and everywhere:
above and below, hidden and revealed.
The Holy Spirit lives in the revealed.
It is concealed below. It is above.I'm getting tired enough to go to sleep, and too tired to think deep thoughts. :p

Not sure whether Sophia and the Holy Spirit are the same. Could be! But I am struck by how "feminine" Gnosticism is. In contrast to how "masculine" Christianity is, where they even gave the Holy Spirit a sex change because, apparently, God can't be female. :uh:

Thanks for the good convo. G'nite!

Buttons*

10-15-2007, 05:26 PM

Hmm. I don't know for sure if they're Gnostic writings, but I know that some LDS scholars have done some research into the dead sea scrolls stuff to compare them with the current LDS wedding ceremonies. I might be able to help you out with that. :)

Heehee, gonna help plan my future wedding? :p

I thought that I'd love to have a marriage ceremony performed Gnostic style, but that'll mostly depend on who I marry, and all that other stuff. If ya want, you can PM me with what you've found. I'm not really all too thrilled about thinking about marriage until I'm out of school anyway. I might jump the gun. >.<

Buttons*

10-15-2007, 05:43 PM

I'm getting tired enough to go to sleep, and too tired to think deep thoughts. :p Yeah man, after that last response I gave, I thought, "Alright, I can answer tomorrow.... must sleeeeep" lol.

Not sure whether Sophia and the Holy Spirit are the same. Could be! But I am struck by how "feminine" Gnosticism is. In contrast to how "masculine" Christianity is, where they even gave the Holy Spirit a sex change because, apparently, God can't be female. :uh:

Thanks for the good convo. G'nite!

That's kind of another reason I liked Gnosticism. It wasn't that it's all about the feminine, but that it acknowledges that the feminine is as important as the masculine. Both balance each other. It also changed the way that men treated women. When you see the divine spark in a person, it doesn't matter what gender they are. I think this is what Yeshua meant. I found some great scripture last night while flipping through my gospels.

The bad part is, I feel like I'm doing what most religious people do to defend an argument. "I'm not sure what to say, let's just post irrelevant scripture that no one will read!" LOL. Truthfully, I don't really get to share my faith with many people, and I'd like to thank you for taking the time out to ask me about it. I'm glad I can share my happiness with others. :heartbeat:

Wisdom, Mother of the Angels
Wisdom, who is called "barren," is mother of the angels.
The companion is Mary of Magdala. Yeshua loved her
more than his students. He kissed her often
on her face, more than all his students,
and they said, "Why do you love her more than us?"
The savior answered, saying to them,
"Why do I not love you like her? If a blind man
and one who sees are together in darkness,
they are the same.
When light comes, the one who sees will see the light.
The blind man stays in darkness."

lilithu

10-15-2007, 10:06 PM

The bad part is, I feel like I'm doing what most religious people do to defend an argument. "I'm not sure what to say, let's just post irrelevant scripture that no one will read!" But you're not defending an argument. You're sharing a perspective. There is a difference. :)

LOL. Truthfully, I don't really get to share my faith with many people, and I'd like to thank you for taking the time out to ask me about it. I'm glad I can share my happiness with others. :heartbeat:"Happiness shared is happiness multiplied." (I know it's corny but it's still true.)

Wisdom, Mother of the Angels
Wisdom, who is called "barren," is mother of the angels.
The companion is Mary of Magdala. Yeshua loved her
more than his students. He kissed her often
on her face, more than all his students,
and they said, "Why do you love her more than us?"
The savior answered, saying to them,
"Why do I not love you like her? If a blind man
and one who sees are together in darkness,
they are the same.
When light comes, the one who sees will see the light.
The blind man stays in darkness." The translation I remember is he kissed her on the lips. And some scholar pointed out that that isn't necessarily romantic (tho it could also be that). That to "kiss on the lips" was to pass secret information from one person directly to another - from one pair of lips to another. Hence, Peter was jealous of Mary. It certainly paints a different picture than Peter being the rock upon which Jesus built his church. ;)

Buttons*

10-15-2007, 11:57 PM

The translation I remember is he kissed her on the lips. And some scholar pointed out that that isn't necessarily romantic (tho it could also be that). That to "kiss on the lips" was to pass secret information from one person directly to another - from one pair of lips to another. Hence, Peter was jealous of Mary. It certainly paints a different picture than Peter being the rock upon which Jesus built his church. ;)
Well, there are other bits of scripture that point out EXACTLY what you just said. Gnostic authors tended to write the exact same stuff... but that's partly because they all belived the same stuff. :haha:

:( I can't find the verse that I want, but I'm sure it's in here somewhere. I'll be back when I dont have homework...

jonny

10-16-2007, 12:21 AM

jonny

10-16-2007, 12:32 AM

Here's something that I found from the Gospel of Phillip:

There were three buildings specifically for sacrifice in Jerusalem. The one facing West was called the Holy, the one facing South was called the Holy of Holies, and the third, facing East, was called the Holy of the Holies, the place where only the high priest entered. Baptism is the Holy building; Redemption is the Holy of Holies; and the Holy of the Holies is the bridal chamber. Baptism includes the resurrection and the redemption, the redemption takes place in the bridal chamber, but the bridal chamber is in that which is superior to it and the others, because you will not find anything like it. Those who are familiar with it are those who pray in the Holy in Jerusalem. There are some in Jerusalem who pray only in Jerusalem awaiting the Kingdom of Heaven. These are called the Holy of the Holies, because before the veil was rent we had no other bridal chamber except the image of the bridal chamber which is above. Because of this, this veil was rent from top to bottom for it was fitting for some from below to go upward.

The Temple as a House of Revelation in the Nag Hammadi Texts - Maxwell Institute Papers (http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=64)

Do you know what is referred to when he talks about the bridal chamber?

jonny

10-16-2007, 12:39 AM

Buttons*

10-16-2007, 01:02 AM

As for the first comment: There are millions of references to marriage in Gnostic literature. Bridal Chambers, Virgins, Marriage... you get the idea. The tricky part is knowing what's allegorical and what's literal. An allegorical/spiritual marriage to the light within you is probably most applicable when reading such texts. Or to marry the feminine or masculine within you to become whole. It has less and less to do with what's physical. To paraphrase: Those who concentrate on worldly things die. (Again, make sure you don't take this as, "Buttons just told me I'm gonna die, what a snot!" cause that's not what I'm saying at all.) :)

Buttons*

10-16-2007, 01:05 AM

This is particularly interesting to me because of the similarities I can see between what the author describes and the LDS temple ceremonies. Some of the similarities are really close!

Look at the part under The Valentinian Mystery of the Bridal Chamber

Ritual in Gnosticism (http://jdt.unl.edu/ritual.htm)

Heehee, I'll have to read more of this later when I'm more awake. Thanks for the link Jonny. :)

Gnostics definately integrated sexuality into their beliefs. Us dirty pagans. LOL.

James the Persian

10-16-2007, 07:14 AM

Alright, I had a longer post and then accidentally killed it, but I would like to ask the questions posed, so here's the short and sweet version.

What are your views on Who Christ was?
What are your views on material Creation?

(I ask these because having read the Gnostic Gospels I find neo-Gnostics often answer perplexingly contrary to the texts).

And finally, how do you reconcile the overtly misogynistic passages in certain of the texts (often far more misogynistic than those passages in the Orthodox texts that are claimed as such) with the usually feminist ethos of neo-Gnosticism (if indeed you do at all)?

James

Buttons*

10-16-2007, 11:24 AM

Alright, I had a longer post and then accidentally killed it, but I would like to ask the questions posed, so here's the short and sweet version. That's fine. You're actually giving me tough questions to go on. Naturally, not many people challenge my faith. (Partly because they know nothing about it.) LOL.

What are your views on Who Christ was? Several things:
1) Christ itself is "annointed" so honestly, I think we're all Christ :p if we are so annointed in the "Light"
2) Yeshua? I think he was a man who understood the relationship of balance. He laughed a lot, had a great personality. He valued a person not because they were female or male, other cultures or not, he saw the light within them, and, like Socrates, tried to get them to see the "Light" without telling them flat out. They wouldn't have understood it otherwise. He tried to get his disciples to understand that they need to wake up out of spiritual slumber.
3)I also think he had played on the Gnostic myth that Sophia needed a "Savior" to understand the error of creating the Demiurge. When Sophia and this Savior were united... well, apparently it's allegorical at this point. When you unite opposites you get wholeness.
4) I don't think he was just one thing. That's like limiting people to only having one state of being, and this, I think, isn't a correct assumption. I assume (probably fallaciously) that Yeshua himself not only enlightened others, but had a few mistakes along the way. I think he was human in every sence of the word. Yeshua is not the one true "God" to me, but I think God is everywhere. Even in you. :namaste:

What are your views on material Creation?

(I ask these because having read the Gnostic Gospels I find neo-Gnostics often answer perplexingly contrary to the texts).
Material Creation: Gnostics went off of what they knew at the time. Much like anyone else at that time. They had limited knowledge of "what was out there." Ancient Gnostics probably believed that they were created by the Demiurge, physically, but they had a spark of gnosis in em. ;) So creation had to do, for them, with a long line who created what. lol. It's all a bit confusing, but I think that if they had known what we THINK we know now, that they wouldn't have written about creation as such.

The other option? It's allegory. LOL.

I'm sorry if my answers aren't completely with the text. If you find contradictions, would you please point them out to me? Truthfully, I think if I got something wrong, it's probably because there's no other Gnostics for me to talk to about this kind of thing. I have to kind of twist it in my own head for a while before I understand everything both in context and in the allegory. It takes me time. :)

And finally, how do you reconcile the overtly misogynistic passages in certain of the texts (often far more misogynistic than those passages in the Orthodox texts that are claimed as such) with the usually feminist ethos of neo-Gnosticism (if indeed you do at all)?

James
Well, you know that I have no problems with Othodoxy. It's as close to my beliefs as ya get in Christianity. (Even if it's worlds apart.) I haven't come across many overly masculine passages when I've been looking. Then again, you know what they say of women, "They hear what they wanna hear." I don't think that's untrue. If I did come across them, though, I'd probably see allegory in it. I want you to know that I don't think references to women are for the rights of women. It's about a spiritual balance, for me.

Hope this helps!

James the Persian

10-17-2007, 04:24 AM

That's fine. You're actually giving me tough questions to go on. Naturally, not many people challenge my faith. (Partly because they know nothing about it.) LOL.

I'm going to ask a couple more or clarification before I make any comment. It's a shame that I lost the long version (entirely my own fault) because I'm not sure you quite understood what I was getting at.

Several things:
1) Christ itself is "annointed" so honestly, I think we're all Christ :p if we are so annointed in the "Light"
2) Yeshua? I think he was a man who understood the relationship of balance. He laughed a lot, had a great personality. He valued a person not because they were female or male, other cultures or not, he saw the light within them, and, like Socrates, tried to get them to see the "Light" without telling them flat out. They wouldn't have understood it otherwise. He tried to get his disciples to understand that they need to wake up out of spiritual slumber.
3)I also think he had played on the Gnostic myth that Sophia needed a "Savior" to understand the error of creating the Demiurge. When Sophia and this Savior were united... well, apparently it's allegorical at this point. When you unite opposites you get wholeness.
4) I don't think he was just one thing. That's like limiting people to only having one state of being, and this, I think, isn't a correct assumption. I assume (probably fallaciously) that Yeshua himself not only enlightened others, but had a few mistakes along the way. I think he was human in every sence of the word. Yeshua is not the one true "God" to me, but I think God is everywhere. Even in you. :namaste:

So you are saying that you see Christ (however you wish to refer to Him) as a mere man? Or do you have some slightly different view of Him? Is He, in your view, God in any way at all that other men are not? Most neo-Gnostics I know would say that Christ was man not God whereas the vast majority of classical Gnostic texts would posit the exact oposite, that's why I ask.

Material Creation: Gnostics went off of what they knew at the time. Much like anyone else at that time. They had limited knowledge of "what was out there." Ancient Gnostics probably believed that they were created by the Demiurge, physically, but they had a spark of gnosis in em. ;) So creation had to do, for them, with a long line who created what. lol. It's all a bit confusing, but I think that if they had known what we THINK we know now, that they wouldn't have written about creation as such.

I definitely think you missed what I was after here. I was really looking for how you viewed creation, in the material sense (i.e. that bit supposedly created by the demiurge - or equivalent, depending on the particular group) as to its 'morality'. Do you view matter as good, bad, neutral? Again, I know of few (actually none who are willing to express this view) neo-Gnostics who follow the docetistic dualist view of creation espoused by the overwhelming majority of classical Gnostics.

Well, you know that I have no problems with Othodoxy. It's as close to my beliefs as ya get in Christianity. (Even if it's worlds apart.) I haven't come across many overly masculine passages when I've been looking. Then again, you know what they say of women, "They hear what they wanna hear." I don't think that's untrue. If I did come across them, though, I'd probably see allegory in it. I want you to know that I don't think references to women are for the rights of women. It's about a spiritual balance, for me.

When I wrote Orthodox there, I meant Orthodox as opposed to Gnostic rather than as opposed to RC. There are certain passages in, for instance, the Pauline epistles, which people often criticise for misogyny (though these criticisms rarely hold within the interpretation of the Church, but only outside of Tradition). On the other hand there are Gnostic passages that seem genuinely misogynistic (and as we no longer have the tradition by which they were interpreted to check against, all we have are the texts themselves) in a way that Paul's comments are not. I was wondering how you understand such passages because to me they seem irreconcilable with the parts of Othodox Christianity that I imagine you would hold to, such as there being neither male nor female, Greek nor Jew, etc. in Christ. In other words, whilst traditional Christianity might see different roles for male and female, it sees no difference in intrinsic worth - Gnosticism did appear to see a major difference. See this from the Gospel of Thomas (which is probably the least heretical, from our point of view, of the Gnostic texts), as an example. Nothing in the NT is close to as misogynistic as:

Simon Peter said to them: Let Mary go forth from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Behold, I shall lead her, that I may make her male, in order that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who makes herself male shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And whilst I'm sure you'll say that this refers to some spiritual maleness rather than physical, I don't see how this alters my conclusion. The classical Gnostic sects, for all that it is fashionable amongst revisionists like Dan Brown to claim otherwise, appear to have a fundamentally more misogynist view than their Orthodox contemporaries.

James

Rev. Killjoy

10-17-2007, 09:40 AM

Is He, in your view, God in any way at all that other men are not? Most neo-Gnostics I know would say that Christ was man not God whereas the vast majority of classical Gnostic texts would posit the exact oposite, that's why I ask.

I think many "neo-Gnostics" (there's technically no other kind) don't think "God" means what you think it means. They tend to view Jesus as no more or less "God" than anyone else, but for his awareness that he is one with the Father, which anybody can have - i.e. every consciousness is both fully "God" and fully "man." Describing what it means to not be and merge in identity back into "God" is beyond the power of language. Thus, you get the following from the Gospel of Thomas

Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to someone and tell me whom I am like."
Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a righteous angel."
Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."
Thomas said to him, "Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom you are like."
Jesus said, "I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring which I have measured out."

Do you view matter as good, bad, neutral? Again, I know of few (actually none who are willing to express this view) neo-Gnostics who follow the docetistic dualist view of creation espoused by the overwhelming majority of classical Gnostics.

Mystics I've read from almost every "tradition" view the "material" reality of the apparent world as illusory, misleading and contrary to the truth. That's an epistemological and allegorical approach that is frequently misunderstood as though it were cosmological and ontological.

James the Persian

10-17-2007, 09:51 AM

I think many "neo-Gnostics" (there's technically no other kind) don't think "God" means what you think it means. They tend to view Jesus as no more or less "God" than anyone else, but for his awareness that he is one with the Father, which anybody can have - i.e. every consciousness is both fully "God" and fully "man." Describing what it means to not be and merge in identity back into "God" is beyond the power of language.

I agree. Neo-Gnostics (and I'll continue to use the term, thanks, as it's useful for distinguishing between the faith held by those reviving Gnosticism and the one held by the adherents of the Gnosticism they are attempting to revive) do generally think that and they also seem to genuinely think that they are rediscovering or recreating classical Gnosticism. Unfortunately, this just doesn't jive because the overwhelming majority of Gnostic sources are docetistic, which in effect denies that Christ was man at all. That's the problem.

Mystics I've read from almost every "tradition" view the "material" reality of the apparent world as illusory, misleading and contrary to the truth. That's an epistemological and allegorical approach that is frequently misunderstood as though it were cosmological and ontological.
Then you've clearly read no Orthodox mysticism (and there's a ton of it - far more, I'd argue than in any other Christian tradition). The material world, for us, is intrinsically good. The Orthodox view, whether expressed by mystics or not, is diametrically opposed to the docetism of the Gnostic Christian sects of antiquity - and that's one of the most frequent criticisms of them that was levelled throughout history.

James

Rev. Killjoy

10-17-2007, 09:59 AM

I agree. Neo-Gnostics do generally think that and they also seem to genuinely think that they are rediscovering or recreating classical Gnosticism. Unfortunately, this just doesn't jive because the overwhelming majority of Gnostic sources are docetistic, which in effect denies that Christ was man at all. That's the problem.

When was the word "Gnostic" first applied to early Christian writings? There really is no ancient "gnostic" movement. That's a modern term applied to a wide and diverse range of early approaches and writings. Some of them are docetic (as were some of the Church "fathers" arguably). Some are not docetic. Some are both, depending on how you read them - which is likely part of the allegory, actually.

2,000 years of orthodoxy has conditioned us to want to read ancient texts as literal cosmologies, and that doesn't necessarily do their meaning any justice. When a so-called Gnostic text declares what "Jesus is" and "Jesus isn't" that's not necessarily meant to be read the way the various flavors of mainstream Christianity have approached the various dogmas under the banner of "Christology." But that may also be the case with any mythology - even the approved "orthodox" writings. ;)

Then you've clearly read no Orthodox mysticism (and there's a ton of it - far more, I'd argue than in any other Christian tradition). The material world, for us, is intrinsically good. The Orthodox view, whether expressed my mystics or not, is diametrically opposed to the docetism of the Gnostic Christian sects of antiquity - and that's one of the most frequent criticisms of them that was levelled throughout history.

What makes one a "mystic" in your view, James?

And is "good" and "evil" something you think mystics are concerned with?

Rev. Killjoy

10-17-2007, 10:09 AM

This is a question for all:

Why do you think there's been so much fascination and interest in things "Gnostic"? Why are so many people inspired to want to identify themselves as "Gnostic" lately?

James the Persian

10-17-2007, 10:17 AM

When was the word "Gnostic" first applied to early Christian writings?

During the lifetime of the authors and by those same people in most cases. They were self-identifying as Gnostic by at least the second century when they were being denounced by Orthodox Fathers.

There really is no ancient "gnostic" movement.

I made no claim of any movement. There are a group of related syncretic Christian cults that practiced a mystery religion approach to the faith emphasising gnosis and who penned the texts now described as gnostic.
That's a modern term applied to a wide and diverse range of early approaches and writings.

True, though you appear to be exaggerating their diversity rather heavily.
Some of them are docetic (as were some of the Church "fathers" arguably). Some are not docetic. Some are both, depending on how you read them - which is likely part of the allegory, actually.

If by some you mean 'overwhelming majority', I'll agree with. Certainly the overwhelming majority of the sects as described in antiquity are docetistic as are the texts they penned that have survived. As to the Fathers - find me one with docetic tendencies (other than the ex-Manichaean Augustine who is only a Father so far as the west is concerned anyway) and I'll take your assertion rather more seriously. Note that Origen and Tertullian are not Fathers before you try and tell me they are - they both ended their lives as heretics.

2,000 years of orthodoxy has conditioned us to want to read ancient texts as literal cosmologies, and that doesn't necessarily do their meaning any justice.

No, reading anuient texts as literal cosmologies is a fundamentally modern and Protestant idea. It isn't 2000 years old. You need to read some of the Fathers commentaries on Genesis to disabuse yourself of this fallacious idea.
When a so-called Gnostic text declares what "Jesus is" and "Jesus isn't" that's not necessarily meant to be read the way the various flavors of mainstream Christianity have approached the various dogmas under the banner of "Christology."
Says who? You have no access to the tradition in which texts were composed, except second hand and from the mouths of their opponents. And that says that they did mean exactly that, given that the human nature component of Christology was developed at least in part due to the attacks of classical gnostic docetists. That's why I asked Buttons how she reconciled it. I was interested in her views and how she forms her religion because I am well aware that she has no tradition to draw on.

What makes one a "mystic" in your view, James?

One who experiences the Divine. In our Tradition that would practically be a synonym for theologian (but not what is mant by that in the western sense) and would generally be exemplified by the hesychasts. What do you mean by a mystic?

And is "good" and "evil" something you think mystics are concerned with?
I have absolutely no idea what you are attempting get at here. If their understanding of the Divine and creation contains these concepts then clearly yes. If not, no. It doesn't seem to be of any fundamental relevance to mysticism, though. Clearly you appear to hold some different view.

James

Rev. Killjoy

10-17-2007, 10:32 AM

During the lifetime of the authors and by those same people in most cases. They were self-identifying as Gnostic by at least the second century when they were being denounced by Orthodox Fathers.

From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism#Major_Gnostic_movements_and_their_texts ):

In essence, it had been decided that 'Gnosticism' would become a historically-specific term, restricted to mean the Gnostic movements prevalent in the 3rd century, while 'gnosis' would be an universal term, denoting a system of knowledge retained 'for a privileged élite.' However, this effort towards providing clarity in fact created more conceptual confusion, as the historical term 'Gnosticism' was an entirely modern construction, while the new universal term 'gnosis' was a historical term: 'something was being called "gnosticism" that the ancient theologians had called "gnosis" ... [A] concept of gnosis had been created by Messina that was almost unusable in a historical sense' (Markschies, Gnosis: An Introduction, 14-15). In antiquity, all agreed that knowledge was centrally important to life, but few were agreed as to what exactly constituted knowledge; the unitary conception that the Messina proposal presupposed did not exist.
These flaws have meant that the problems concerning an exact definition of Gnosticism persist. It remains current convention to use 'Gnosticism' in a historical sense, and 'gnosis' universally. Leaving aside the issues with the latter noted above, the usage of 'Gnosticism' to designate a category of religions in the 3rd century has recently been questioned as well. Of note is the work of Michael Allen Williams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Allen_Williams) in Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for the Dismantling of a Dubious Category, in which the author examines the terms by which gnosticism as a category is defined, and then closely compares these suppositions with the contents of actual Gnostic texts (the newly-recovered Nag Hammadi library was of central importance to his thesis).

Williams argues that the conceptual foundations on which the category of Gnosticism rests are the remains of the agenda of the heresiologists. Too much emphasis has been laid on perceptions of dualism, body-and-matter hatred, and anticosmism, without these suppositions being properly tested. In essence, the interpretive definition of Gnosticism that was created by the antagonistic efforts of the heresiologists has been taken up by modern scholarship and reflected in a categorical definition, even though the means now exist to verify its accuracy. Attempting to do so, Williams contests, reveals the dubious nature of categorical 'Gnosticism', and he concludes that the term needs replacing in order to more accurately reflect those movements it comprises. Williams' observations have provoked debate; however, to date his suggested replacement term 'the Biblical demiurgical tradition' has not become widely used.This follows pretty closely what I've read from many other scholars on the subject, including Karen King excellent treatment of the subject in her book What is Gnosticism? I've dedicated a fair amount of study specifically to this topic, James. With all due respect, you are greatly oversimplifying matters to support your argument.

As to the Fathers - find me one with docetic tendencies (other than the ex-Manichaean Augustine who is only a Father so far as the west is concerned anyway) and I'll take your assertion rather more seriously. Note that Origen and Tertullian are not Fathers before you try and tell me they are - they both ended their lives as heretics.

Now you're just playing silly word games. You choose to define "fathers" by whether they agree with you. You can play with yourself in that game. No thanks.

No, reading anuient texts as literal cosmologies is a fundamentally modern and Protestant idea. It isn't 2000 years old. You need to read some of the Fathers commentaries on Genesis to disabuse yourself of this fallacious idea.

Really? So "Jesus" in the gospels is allegorical and mythological after all? Thanks. That settles our discussion then. :D

Says who? You have no access to the tradition in which texts were composed, except second hand and from the mouths of their opponents. And that says that they did mean exactly that, given that the human nature component of Christology was developed at least in part due to the attacks of classical gnostic docetists. That's why I asked Buttons how she reconciled it. I was interested in her views and how she forms her religion because I am well aware that she has no tradition to draw on.

And that's the point. Who cares what the tradition says? The referents can all be understood to be mythological/psychological - pointing inward rather than outward. You don't know that they weren't anymore than I do, but you insist on judging them as literal statements of Christology with the application of words like "docetism." I'm merely pointing out that you speak empty words without knowledge.

What do you mean by a mystic?

He who knows doesn't speak. He who speaks doesn't know.

James the Persian

10-17-2007, 10:52 AM

I've dedicated a fair amount of study specifically to this topic, James. With all due respect, you are greatly oversimplifying matters to support your argument.

As have I and I can make the same claim with regards to your argument. You clearly appear to favour the 'let's dismiss the Orthodox opponents of the Gnostics because they obviously invented their polemics' line of thought. I find that intellectually dishonest. One must always be aware that they were opponents, but you ignore their testimony at your peril. Unfortunately that's the fashionable thing to do in certain circles. As to your harping on about Gnosticism as opposed to gnosis (from which, after all, we derive gnostic) it is as ludicrous as the argument made by certain anti-Trinitarians that the concept is wrong because the term is a later one.

Now you're just playing silly word games. You choose to define "fathers" by whether they agree with you. You can play with yourself in that game. No thanks.

I don't define them at all. My faith doesn't allow for a pick and choose attitude to the faith. The Church defines who are and are not Fathers and I was just informing you that three of the people who have often been described to me as Fathers in the past are not Fathers according to the Church. If you can't make your argument without reference to those three then I rest my case. Docetism is alien to the Fathers. After all if I let you define whoever you like to be a Father regardless of what the Church says you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing - picking people who agree with your views. Under such terms you could claim Valentinus, Arius or Marcion were Fathers.

Really? So "Jesus" in the gospels is allegorical and mythological after all? Thanks. That settles our discussion then. :D

That does not follow from what I said at all and your argument is puerile. Saying that not everything is taken literally even in the early Fathers does not imply that nothing is literal. On top of which, the existence or otherwise of Christ is not a cosmology.

And that's the point. Who cares what the tradition says? The referents can all be understood to be mythological/psychological - pointing inward rather than outward. You don't know that they weren't anymore than I do, but you insist on judging them as literal statements of Christology with the application of words like "docetism." I'm merely pointing out that you speak empty words without knowledge.

That's the point exactly. Any text can be interpreted in just about any way you like, which is why I was asking (out of interest and not just to argue) how Buttons reconciles the evidence with her particular faith. You are the one who is making statements about how the texts are to be interpreted with no evidence whatsoever, not I. I have evidence in the words of the Fathers that opposed them. Hostile polemics may not be great evidence but they're better than nothing. After all, how useful could anti-gnostic apologetics be if they bore no resemblance to the beliefs of those with whom they were arguing? That they contain errors and exaggerations I don't doubt, but your argument hinges on them being works of fiction, and that's highly doubtful.

He who knows doesn't speak. He who speaks doesn't know.
Puerile, pseudo-intellectual clap-trap. If you can't even be bothered to answer questions which I have answered for you then I can see just how seriously I ought to take your arguments - not very. I don't appreciate being treated like an ignoramus, especially in areas where I can demonstrate that my knowledge is at least the equal of my opponent.

James

Rev. Killjoy

10-17-2007, 11:08 AM

I've dedicated a fair amount of study specifically to this topic, James. With all due respect, you are greatly oversimplifying matters to support your argument.

As have I and I can make the same claim with regards to your argument.

Sure. But that doesn't make it credible. I can make the claim that aliens wrote it. Big whoop!

You clearly appear to favour the 'let's dismiss the Orthodox opponents of the Gnostics because they obviously invented their polemics' line of thought. I find that intellectually dishonest.

Straw man. I favor the "neither you nor I know what the authors believed because there is little or no evidence either way" approach. Your arrogance is astounding.

[quote]
Now you're just playing silly word games. You choose to define "fathers" by whether they agree with you. You can play with yourself in that game. No thanks.
I don't define them at all. My faith doesn't allow for a pick and choose attitude to the faith.

Your faith defines them and you accept it. Same deal. It's a stupid word game you want to engage in. I'm not interested in it.

That does not follow from what I said at all and your argument is puerile.

Sure it does. And your argument is arrogant as well as ignorant.

Saying that not everything is taken literally even in the early Fathers does not imply that nothing is literal. On top of which, the existence or otherwise of Christ is not a cosmology.

It's part of a cosmology. And that's yet another straw man. My point remains so long as any part of the story is read as a literal Christology.

That's the point exactly. Any text can be interpreted in just about any way you like, which is why I was asking (out of interest and not just to argue) how Buttons reconciles the evidence with her particular faith.

First of all, I think you are being dishonest in suggesting you didn't want to argue about it. Your disdain for what you consider "neo-Gnostics" comes across loud and clear, James. You aren't kidding me. Second, since a text can be interpreted however one wants, you offer your own counter-argument. You want there be docetism in "Gnostic" texts so you don't have to engage them on a personal level and determine whether they mean anything to you . . . and surprise, surprise . . . you see "docetism" at every turn.

You are the one who is making statements about how the texts are to be interpreted with no evidence whatsoever, not I.

BALONEY. I've never said how they should be interepreted. I've suggested how else they might be interpreted aside from your assertions about what the must mean. You are flat out lying.

Rev. Killjoy

10-17-2007, 11:12 AM

James the Persian

10-17-2007, 11:29 AM

Sure. But that doesn't make it credible. I can make the claim that aliens wrote it. Big whoop!

My claims are based on contemporaries and reading the texts for myself, not fantasy. You just can't lay off the puerile arguments can you?

Straw man. I favor the "neither you nor I know what the authors believed because there is little or no evidence either way" approach. Your arrogance is astounding.

There is little evidence but the evidence that there is points my way, not yours. That's not arrogance at all. You haven't come up with any evidence as to what they believed at all. I have read and can cite, if you like, the Fathers that you are unable to identify - say Irenaeus.

Your faith defines them and you accept it. Same deal. It's a stupid word game you want to engage in. I'm not interested in it.

It's not a stupid word game. You were arguing that docetism could be found in Orthodox Fathers, except that you want to edit the list of those Fathers such that it includes condemned heretics. That's intellectually dishonest to say the least. It would be the equivalent of me demanding that I be able to define Irenaeus as a Gnostic so as to allow me to better argue against them.

Sure it does. And your argument is arrogant as well as ignorant.

No it does not. Saying that the Fathers did not interpret the texts entirely literally does not imply that nothing in the texts is literal. My argument is neither arrogant nor ignorant - yours remains puerile.

It's part of a cosmology. And that's yet another straw man. My point remains so long as any part of the story is read as a literal Christology.

No it doesn't. Your point revolves around us reading the whole as metaphorical - otherwise you can't conclude that Christ is mythological.

First of all, I think you are being dishonest in suggesting you didn't want to argue about it. Your disdain for what you consider "neo-Gnostics" comes across loud and clear, James. You aren't kidding me.

It's nice to meet a mind reader - perhaps I should just think my next post at you. If you want to see my attitude to Buttons (who I like) then read my correspondence with her earlier in the thread. I don't agree with her faith but I certainly do not disdain her at all. The disdauin you detect is real, but it's for your pseudo-intellectualism and near baseless arguments.
Second, since a text can be interpreted however one wants, you offer your own counter-argument. You want there be docetism in "Gnostic" texts so you don't have to engage them on a personal level and determine whether they mean anything to you . . . and surprise, surprise . . . you see "docetism" at every turn.

No. I said that docetism is found in the majority of texts and is one of the charges levelled against them by contemporary opponents. I don't see docetism at every turn, because some are not docetistic, and I have said this from the beginning

BALONEY.

That's right, when you feel youself losing the argument, just shout louder - that always works.
I've never said how they should be interepreted. I've suggested how else they might be interpreted aside from your assertions about what the must mean. You are flat out lying.

Yes you did. You made an absolute statement which have since gone back and edited ergo you are the one who is lying. I can accept that you did not intend to do so, but to accuse me of making it up is incredibly dishonest. In addition, I never said how they must be interpreted at all, I just said what the preponderance of the admittedly sparse evidence suggests.

James

James the Persian

10-17-2007, 11:33 AM

Puerile, pseudo-intellectual clap-trap. If you can't even be bothered to answer questions which I have answered for you then I can see just how seriously I ought to take your arguments - not very.

If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question, James. That's my answer. Sorry.

If you don't expect to be asked the question then you shouldn't have asked it of me in the first place. At least I gave you an answer and one that you could even research if you wanted. All you did was put on your 'enigmatic guru' act again, and I don't have time for such nonsense. It doesn't impress me.

James

Buttons*

10-17-2007, 12:02 PM

I'm going to ask a couple more or clarification before I make any comment. It's a shame that I lost the long version (entirely my own fault) because I'm not sure you quite understood what I was getting at.

After reading your clarifications, I think I scratched my head and thought, "Well... that's what I was talking about...." LOL. I'm sorry my answers weren't clear, I'll try to answer your questions more fully.

So you are saying that you see Christ (however you wish to refer to Him) as a mere man? Or do you have some slightly different view of Him? Is He, in your view, God in any way at all that other men are not? Most neo-Gnostics I know would say that Christ was man not God whereas the vast majority of classical Gnostic texts would posit the exact oposite, that's why I ask. Well, the word: Christ = not man. It's a title. So I agree with you there, Christ cannot be viewed as a person. LOL

Here's the thing though. For a while, I believed that Yeshua had never existed and that he was a product of mythologies pulled together to make one incredible guy. The mysteries of Dionysis and Osiris have so many similiarities to the myths of Yeshua and his birth through all the miracles he performed. If there happened to be a good man named Yeshua who followed the light, well, we'll never really know. The issue really is putting it into context. At the time of Yeshua, people were putting great Greek men on godly pedistols. The texts about Yeshua were mostly written in greek. Naturally, there was a bit of plot twisting going on somewhere. Think of Pythagoras.

Pythagoras today: common mathematician
Pythagoras alive: godhood! Man could walk on water and had mystical powers.

Which one is accurate to being a Pythagorean today? (If one wanted to become one.)

Back to the topic at hand. Yeshua was seen in many forms in Gnostic literature: a child, light, man, allegory, miracle worker. From all the various texts and differen't ways of seeing the man, it seems that the man himself had no real form, but that was available for all to see. Whether this means strictly myth or allegory, I honestly don't know. We weren't there, ya know?

I definitely think you missed what I was after here. I was really looking for how you viewed creation, in the material sense (i.e. that bit supposedly created by the demiurge - or equivalent, depending on the particular group) as to its 'morality'. Do you view matter as good, bad, neutral? Again, I know of few (actually none who are willing to express this view) neo-Gnostics who follow the docetistic dualist view of creation espoused by the overwhelming majority of classical Gnostics. Naturally, there was a TON of dualism going back on in those times. Things are destinctly separated into good and evil in concerns to the text itself. I personally understand my dualistic nature. I also interpret the text to mean that both good and evil exist, but that the good is not only knowing the good, but seeing through the evil. Not to mention, seeing that they intertwine and are important. The Good that I understand wouldn't allow evil unless it were necessary. Anyway, I take a more Taoistic approach to it , so I'm well aware that it might not cover the way in which Gnostics believed it. I really wish I had access to their actual traditions. :(

When I wrote Orthodox there, I meant Orthodox as opposed to Gnostic rather than as opposed to RC. There are certain passages in, for instance, the Pauline epistles, which people often criticise for misogyny (though these criticisms rarely hold within the interpretation of the Church, but only outside of Tradition). On the other hand there are Gnostic passages that seem genuinely misogynistic (and as we no longer have the tradition by which they were interpreted to check against, all we have are the texts themselves) in a way that Paul's comments are not. I was wondering how you understand such passages because to me they seem irreconcilable with the parts of Othodox Christianity that I imagine you would hold to, such as there being neither male nor female, Greek nor Jew, etc. in Christ. In other words, whilst traditional Christianity might see different roles for male and female, it sees no difference in intrinsic worth - Gnosticism did appear to see a major difference. See this from the Gospel of Thomas (which is probably the least heretical, from our point of view, of the Gnostic texts), as an example. Nothing in the NT is close to as misogynistic as:

Simon Peter said to them: Let Mary go forth from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Behold, I shall lead her, that I may make her male, in order that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who makes herself male shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And whilst I'm sure you'll say that this refers to some spiritual maleness rather than physical, I don't see how this alters my conclusion. The classical Gnostic sects, for all that it is fashionable amongst revisionists like Dan Brown to claim otherwise, appear to have a fundamentally more misogynist view than their Orthodox contemporaries.

James
Dan Brown is moron. Please don't bring his name up in my thread. :( I truly dislike being associated with him.

I'm sorry about this, but I have to get ready for school. I'll come back and reply to the bit that I left unanswered!

Thanks for your questions. :)

James the Persian

10-17-2007, 12:24 PM

After reading your clarifications, I think I scratched my head and thought, "Well... that's what I was talking about...." LOL. I'm sorry my answers weren't clear, I'll try to answer your questions more fully.

Thanks (despite our resident mind reader's opinion to the contrary, I really wasn't looking for an argument, but to understand your faith - gnostic doesn't tell me much about what you actually believe).

Well, the word: Christ = not man. It's a title. So I agree with you there, Christ cannot be viewed as a person. LOL

OK, but you realise that by Christ I am referring to Christ Jesus and not just the concept of a Messiah, don't you?

Here's the thing though. For a while, I believed that Yeshua had never existed and that he was a product of mythologies pulled together to make one incredible guy. The mysteries of Dionysis and Osiris have so many similiarities to the myths of Yeshua and his birth through all the miracles he performed. If there happened to be a good man named Yeshua who followed the light, well, we'll never really know. The issue really is putting it into context. At the time of Yeshua, people were putting great Greek men on godly pedistols. The texts about Yeshua were mostly written in greek. Naturally, there was a bit of plot twisting going on somewhere. Think of Pythagoras.

Pythagoras today: common mathematician
Pythagoras alive: godhood! Man could walk on water and had mystical powers.

Which one is accurate to being a Pythagorean today? (If one wanted to become one.)

Back to the topic at hand. Yeshua was seen in many forms in Gnostic literature: a child, light, man, allegory, miracle worker. From all the various texts and differen't ways of seeing the man, it seems that the man himself had no real form, but that was available for all to see. Whether this means strictly myth or allegory, I honestly don't know. We weren't there, ya know?

OK, so what does this mean for you personally now? Do you consider Christ (bear with me on the terminology!) to be a real man who taught gnostic Christianity, or do you consider Him to be an allegorical representation of the essence of gnosis, or do you believe something else? I think I can safely say that you don't appear to view Him as God in an illusory human 'body'.

Naturally, there was a TON of dualism going back on in those times. Things are destinctly separated into good and evil in concerns to the text itself. I personally understand my dualistic nature. I also interpret the text to mean that both good and evil exist, but that the good is not only knowing the good, but seeing through the evil. Not to mention, seeing that they intertwine and are important. The Good that I understand wouldn't allow evil unless it were necessary. Anyway, I take a more Taoistic approach to it , so I'm well aware that it might not cover the way in which Gnostics believed it. I really wish I had access to their actual traditions. :(

I can't say that I'm that familiar with Taoism so I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. I take it from your answer, though, that you don't view matter as an evil prison that we must escape by attaining gnosis? What, incidentally, is your view of the Old and New Testament portrayals of God? Are they one and the same being or, like some (before words get put in my mouth again) of the gnostics do you consider the OT God to be the demiurge and the NT one the true God? Or does my question not even have relevance to your faith?

Dan Brown is moron. Please don't bring his name up in my thread. :(

Wow, who'd have thought that this thread would lead to yourself and myself finding that we are in complete total and utter agreement on something. Moron he is, indeed. Unfortunately some of the more academically acceptable revisionists share some of his ability to ignore inconvenient truths.
I truly dislike being associated with him.
I can understand why. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who claim to be gnostics because they've read (and fallen for) the Da Vinci Code - it must get rather trying! I shall not associate you with him in future. I really only raised him as an example because he's the most well known of the type.

I'm sorry about this, but I have to get ready for school. I'll come back and reply to the bit that I left unanswered!

Thanks for your questions. :)
No problem. Thanks for your answers.

James

Buttons*

10-17-2007, 06:53 PM

OK, but you realise that by Christ I am referring to Christ Jesus and not just the concept of a Messiah, don't you? Yeah, I just felt like being a little cheeky. *giggle* Sorry James, I'll be more serious now.

OK, so what does this mean for you personally now? Do you consider Christ (bear with me on the terminology!) to be a real man who taught gnostic Christianity, or do you consider Him to be an allegorical representation of the essence of gnosis, or do you believe something else? I think I can safely say that you don't appear to view Him as God in an illusory human 'body'.
Truthfully, deep down inside: There could have been a man, and we'd never know, but I believe that this story is much more of an allegory than anything. It's hard for me to jump on either side of this fence, you see, because I have no evidence either way. It's just what I feel.

I can't say that I'm that familiar with Taoism so I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. I take it from your answer, though, that you don't view matter as an evil prison that we must escape by attaining gnosis?
*sigh* I find myself being a hypocrite. I don't like it. :o
My Gnostic foundation (you can laugh too :) I know I did!) and all that I know about Gnosticism is that there is a need to escape from the material in order to "see the Light." I feel that attaining gnosis is the way to be free from ignorance.

The only thing that I wanted understood, also, is that i feel the material is necessary because it "is." That doesn't really have to do with Gnosticism, it's more of a personal philosophy.

What, incidentally, is your view of the Old and New Testament portrayals of God? Are they one and the same being or, like some (before words get put in my mouth again) of the gnostics do you consider the OT God to be the demiurge and the NT one the true God? Or does my question not even have relevance to your faith?
Well, it's a relevant topic for sure! I learned, as you've said, that the OT God is the demiurge. I believe this to be true. I have a hard time saying, though, that the canonical books of the NT are from the true God. The books that were left out of the canon were left out for a specific reason. I don't believe in conspiracy, but I do believe that people in charge wanted to send a distinct message about the God they chose to worship. This is why some of the OT texts were later discarded from Jewish and Christian literature.

Me: I don't think it's that important to beat my head against the wall, so to speak. I can clearly see the difference in the Gods of both testaments and non-canonical texts. I don't think you can put a name or a face on whatever "God" is true.

Wow, who'd have thought that this thread would lead to yourself and myself finding that we are in complete total and utter agreement on something. I've always thought we had more in common than just the dislike of Dan Brown. :) Hopefully that doesn't offend you.

Moron he is, indeed. Unfortunately some of the more academically acceptable revisionists share some of his ability to ignore inconvenient truths. I'd rather read texts from actual scholars in the field than ignorant fiction writers... if I did, I may as well be a Scientologist. :p

I can understand why. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who claim to be gnostics because they've read (and fallen for) the Da Vinci Code - it must get rather trying! I shall not associate you with him in future. I really only raised him as an example because he's the most well known of the type.
It's aggrevating to say the least. I understand that you meant nothing by it. People who follow the teachings of "Dan Brown" aren't Gnostic whatsoever. LOL. Much in the same way that you can't be Muslim by worshiping Osama Bin Ladin. Ya know? (Though Mr. Bin Ladin might be slightly more dangerous than Mr. Brown.)

I listen to people like Stephan Hoeller, Mervin Mayer, William Barnstone, Jacob Needleman, and the authors of "The Jesus Mysteries" series (Gandy and Freke, I believe). These people have done their homework, to say the least!

And now back to that part I didn't get to finish this morning....

Buttons*

10-17-2007, 07:24 PM

When I wrote Orthodox there, I meant Orthodox as opposed to Gnostic rather than as opposed to RC. There are certain passages in, for instance, the Pauline epistles, which people often criticise for misogyny (though these criticisms rarely hold within the interpretation of the Church, but only outside of Tradition). On the other hand there are Gnostic passages that seem genuinely misogynistic (and as we no longer have the tradition by which they were interpreted to check against, all we have are the texts themselves) in a way that Paul's comments are not. I was wondering how you understand such passages because to me they seem irreconcilable with the parts of Othodox Christianity that I imagine you would hold to, such as there being neither male nor female, Greek nor Jew, etc. in Christ. I understand ya here ;)

In other words, whilst traditional Christianity might see different roles for male and female, it sees no difference in intrinsic worth - I'm not so sure that's the case, from my point of view at least. I was Christian for a time. In the context of when the texts were written, women weren't valued the same as men, whatsoever. I think that the reasons it's not a big deal to anyone who is actively Christian are:

1) The understanding of the texts have changed over time, along with cultures and other movements. This is natural, and not a bad thing.
2) Texts have been altered over time. I'm sorry if this upsets you, but this is true.

Gnosticism did appear to see a major difference. Yes, as did all ancient cultures at the time.

See this from the Gospel of Thomas (which is probably the least heretical, from our point of view, of the Gnostic texts), as an example. Nothing in the NT is close to as misogynistic as:

Simon Peter said to them: Let Mary go forth from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Behold, I shall lead her, that I may make her male, in order that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who makes herself male shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

As you've assumed, I agree that it refers to the spiritual and not the physical. Why would Yeshua want to make all women into men? Was Yeshua homosexual? :p

Clearly it's not the case that Yeshua desired the world to be made up of males completely. From the culture at the time, women were not valued as citizens, nor as people. If you are trying to change something in the way the world views something, do you say something they will murder you for? Or, perhaps, do you say something that your audience can relate to and understand. I think this passage was dumbed down for the people of that day and age to understand.

And whilst I'm sure you'll say that this refers to some spiritual maleness rather than physical, I don't see how this alters my conclusion. That Gnosticism is misogynistic? I'm not going to alter your conclusion. If you're set in what you believe, I'm not going to force a change on you. It's not what Yeshua would have wanted. ;)

The classical Gnostic sects, for all that it is fashionable amongst revisionists {edited for my sanity} to claim otherwise, appear to have a fundamentally more misogynist view than their Orthodox contemporaries.
I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Instead of answering and making myself look idiotic, I'm just gonna ask you to possibly rephrase this bit. Would you?

James the Persian

10-18-2007, 04:10 AM

I understand ya here ;)
Thought you would

I'm not so sure that's the case, from my point of view at least. I was Christian for a time. In the context of when the texts were written, women weren't valued the same as men, whatsoever. I think that the reasons it's not a big deal to anyone who is actively Christian are:

1) The understanding of the texts have changed over time, along with cultures and other movements. This is natural, and not a bad thing.
2) Texts have been altered over time. I'm sorry if this upsets you, but this is true.

Yes, as did all ancient cultures at the time.
I honestly see very little change at all in the understanding of the intrinsic value of women from the earliest Church Fathers to now - there's been some change in the understanding of their role, but as that is to an extent a societal construct and society has changed, that's hardly surprising. The texts relating to this aspect of the faith haven't been altered (and in fact to phrase it in that way suggests delieberate perversion of the text which is 1.) an unsustainable argument and 2.) something which would have been extremely difficult if not impossibnle to achieve practically given the decentralised nature of the early Church - changed over time in the way that all texts do when manually copied would be far more accurate) and it's easy to overstate the changes that have occurred in the NT. The ancient Scripture fragments are actually remarkably uniform for texts of the time.

As you've assumed, I agree that it refers to the spiritual and not the physical. Why would Yeshua want to make all women into men? Was Yeshua homosexual? :p

No, I saw nothing sexual in it, just the implication that women are spiritually inferior to men - to the point at which they are actually unable to make spiritual progress as women. This is emphatically not, and never was, the case in Orthodox Christianity, a major reason why the early Church was so popular with women in the Empire. It is, however, quite a common attitude in the mystery cults of the time - thinking, knowledge and wisdom generally being thought of as male characteristics. Even then, if 'female' is a metaphor for inferior spiritually, the fact that female is the term used betrays a misogyny not found amongst the orthodox Christians of the time.

Clearly it's not the case that Yeshua desired the world to be made up of males completely. From the culture at the time, women were not valued as citizens, nor as people. If you are trying to change something in the way the world views something, do you say something they will murder you for? Or, perhaps, do you say something that your audience can relate to and understand. I think this passage was dumbed down for the people of that day and age to understand.

But the early Church did champion women and slaves and all those people that the Empire disenfranchised and did consider them all spiritually equal. The fact that the gnostics seemed not to is a major issue that I have with them. Even their contemporaries criticised them as elitest and those are people who were living in the self-same society. If what you say is true then it makes me wonder why the gnostics felt the need to compromise with society while the orthodox did not.

That Gnosticism is misogynistic? I'm not going to alter your conclusion. If you're set in what you believe, I'm not going to force a change on you. It's not what Yeshua would have wanted. ;)
No, my conclusion is that the gnostic sects of antiquity were more, not less misogynistic and had a much lower view of women than the Orthodox Christians did. It takes a powerful set of rose tinted glasses to ignore that and claim, as do some neo-Gnostics, that they were more in touch with the feminine. Neo-Gnostics may wish to celebrate feminine spirituality, and that's fine, but they're kidding themselves if they think this is what the classival gnostic sects did or, a la the man I shall not name, they believe that putting down this 'divine feminine' idea was a major preoccupation of the Church.

I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Instead of answering and making myself look idiotic, I'm just gonna ask you to possibly rephrase this bit. Would you?
I think i just did that in the section above but do let me know if there's anthing you think I could explain better.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

James

P.S.
I think we have more in common than a hatred of that moronic novellist, too. I just doubt there's much on which we agree quite so vehemently.

Buttons*

10-18-2007, 04:37 AM

I honestly see very little change at all in the understanding of the intrinsic value of women from the earliest Church Fathers to now - there's been some change in the understanding of their role, but as that is to an extent a societal construct and society has changed, that's hardly surprising. The texts relating to this aspect of the faith haven't been altered (and in fact to phrase it in that way suggests delieberate perversion of the text which is 1.) an unsustainable argument and 2.) something which would have been extremely difficult if not impossibnle to achieve practically given the decentralised nature of the early Church - changed over time in the way that all texts do when manually copied would be far more accurate) and it's easy to overstate the changes that have occurred in the NT. The ancient Scripture fragments are actually remarkably uniform for texts of the time. I don't think the NT was completely perverted, but that things in it were altered (and continuously ARE altered, as various denominations see fit) to fit the Church's needs. To discard some of the Gnostic writings of Yeshua is exactly the same as re-writing the Gospel, in my opinion. I know we won't see eye to eye on this one.

No, I saw nothing sexual in it, just the implication that women are spiritually inferior to men - to the point at which they are actually unable to make spiritual progress as women. I admit, when I read that passage for the first time (about four years ago now) I was taken aback. I had to do some research on my own, as well as read footnotes in order for the text to make sense to me. Much in the way that the Trinity is a difficult concept for people who aren't Christian, so the idea that Gnostics viewed men and women as different and equal is difficult for non Gnostics.

After reading what actual scholars have to say on the subject, I feel that my beliefs are pretty "on target."

This is emphatically not, and never was, the case in Orthodox Christianity, a major reason why the early Church was so popular with women in the Empire. It is, however, quite a common attitude in the mystery cults of the time - thinking, knowledge and wisdom generally being thought of as male characteristics. Even then, if 'female' is a metaphor for inferior spiritually, the fact that female is the term used betrays a misogyny not found amongst the orthodox Christians of the time. That's interesting to note. Though, since none of us were women back then, nor are we experts in that anthropological field, we can't really say, can we?

There is no doubt in my mind that Othrodoxy is a good faith. As I've said before, my Grandmother was raised Orthodox, and I truly respect it. I'm not sure why you feel compelled to compare Gnosticism to Orthodoxy, though. I guess I just don't get the point. LOL. If you want to tell me that Gnosticism is traditionally male-centered, that's fair enough. It's interesting to see the other side. I don't understand why we need to compare faiths, though, ya know?

But the early Church did champion women and slaves and all those people that the Empire disenfranchised and did consider them all spiritually equal. The fact that the gnostics seemed not to is a major issue that I have with them. Even their contemporaries criticised them as elitest and those are people who were living in the self-same society. If what you say is true then it makes me wonder why the gnostics felt the need to compromise with society while the orthodox did not. I'm no scholar. I claim not to know everything that happened. If you have an issue with Gnosticism, what does it even matter what my opinion is? From the ways I have interpreted texts, they seem to enforce equality, in my opinion. We'll have to agree to disagree here. Neither one of us really knows anyway, we weren't there.

I don't think Gnostics compromised much more than any other faith has over time. :shrug:

No, my conclusion is that the gnostic sects of antiquity were more, not less misogynistic and had a much lower view of women than the Orthodox Christians did. If you want to hold onto it, you can. :)

It takes a powerful set of rose tinted glasses to ignore that and claim, as do some neo-Gnostics, that they were more in touch with the feminine. Neo-Gnostics may wish to celebrate feminine spirituality, and that's fine, but they're kidding themselves if they think this is what the classival gnostic sects did or, a la the man I shall not name, they believe that putting down this 'divine feminine' idea was a major preoccupation of the Church.
I won't ignore it, but I can't say I believe the claim either. Like I said before, of all the various scholars I've read concerning the subject, they seem to have the idea in their heads that Gnostics were in touch with both feminine and masculine together.

I'll mention, for example: Barbelo and Sophia - Gnostic goddesses/forms of thought. Since when does Christianity have godesses? I don't mean to say that any religion with goddesses is completely true and wonderful. What I do want to imply is this:

Gnostics may not be all about the feminine, but I still believe it was there, after reading the texts for myself and studying what scholars had to say about it.

James the Persian

10-18-2007, 05:20 AM

I don't think the NT was completely perverted, but that things in it were altered (and continuously ARE altered, as various denominations see fit) to fit the Church's needs. To discard some of the Gnostic writings of Yeshua is exactly the same as re-writing the Gospel, in my opinion. I know we won't see eye to eye on this one.

OK, we'll have to agree to disagree, but when you say discarded you imply that they were at least considered - they never were. Most of the Gnostic texts were discounted as soon as they appeared (and most of those are no earlier than the latter half of the 2nd century). They were never candidates on any Father or council's list for the canon - not even the Gospel of Thomas which is the only Gnostic text that has any possibility of haveing been composed near the time of the canonical Gospels.

I admit, when I read that passage for the first time (about four years ago now) I was taken aback. I had to do some research on my own, as well as read footnotes in order for the text to make sense to me. Much in the way that the Trinity is a difficult concept for people who aren't Christian, so the idea that Gnostics viewed men and women as different and equal is difficult for non Gnostics.

After reading what actual scholars have to say on the subject, I feel that my beliefs are pretty "on target."
Fair enough. I, personally, find it hard to swallow no matter how much reading I have done on the subject. I'm glad that you have found a position you are happy with.

That's interesting to note. Though, since none of us were women back then, nor are we experts in that anthropological field, we can't really say, can we?

No, we'll never personally know, but the historical evidence is pretty compelling.

There is no doubt in my mind that Othrodoxy is a good faith. As I've said before, my Grandmother was raised Orthodox, and I truly respect it. I'm not sure why you feel compelled to compare Gnosticism to Orthodoxy, though. I guess I just don't get the point. LOL. If you want to tell me that Gnosticism is traditionally male-centered, that's fair enough. It's interesting to see the other side. I don't understand why we need to compare faiths, though, ya know?

I'm not really comparing faiths. You keep thinking I'm meaning Orthodoxy as in my faith (and though I do believe my faith is that faith in a way no other is, it has developed over the centuries as well), when in actual fact I'm using the term Orthodox in opposition to Gnostic. In the era we are talking about (prior to the major Christological controversies of the later centuries), you really have three main groups, the Ebionites, the Gnostics and those that went on to become known as the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian churches. The Orthodox in my discussions with you are the forebears of all four of the latter churches. Hopefully that's clarified things.

I'm no scholar. I claim not to know everything that happened. If you have an issue with Gnosticism, what does it even matter what my opinion is? From the ways I have interpreted texts, they seem to enforce equality, in my opinion. We'll have to agree to disagree here. Neither one of us really knows anyway, we weren't there.

Because I'm interested in what you believe and why. I often discuss these sorts of things with people of other faiths despite my not agreeing with them and I don't pretend to agree when I don't. It's not out of a wish to convert you or anything like that I'm just interested and when I'm interested in something I'm not shy about offering my opinions. I don't mean to offend or anything. I hope you understand. I do have an issue with gnosticism because it is a faith with which I cannot agree on many, many levels, but that doesn't mean your opinion doesn't matter. Indeed what could possibly matter more than your opinion if I'm asking about your beliefs?

I don't think Gnostics compromised much more than any other faith has over time. :shrug:

Nor do I, which is why I believe the different attitude to be more fundamental - but I could, of course, be wrong.

If you want to hold onto it, you can. :)
Thanks. I do. I hasten to add that that does not mean that I think that neo-gnostics are all misogynists or that modern orthodox Christians are all feminists. It's just that historically I see nothing to suggest that the gnostics had a more enlightened attitude about females than their contemporaries.

I won't ignore it, but I can't say I believe the claim either. Like I said before, of all the various scholars I've read concerning the subject, they seem to have the idea in their heads that Gnostics were in touch with both feminine and masculine together.

I didn't mean that there was nothing of the feminine in there. How could you have a faith that ignored half the population? I get annoyed, however, with the constant accusations against the Church which are made that can only be made if one ignores inconvenient facts like the passage I posted and the place of the feminine within the orthodox Church. I'm sure you know only too well what I mean - I've posted on it before.

I'll mention, for example: Barbelo and Sophia - Gnostic goddesses/forms of thought. Since when does Christianity have godesses?
[quote]
Why is it necessary to have goddesses and does the presence or absence of them really speak much as to the place of the feminine within the religion? I mean, for us God is neither male nor female. Christ was Incarnate as a man (but that would have been necessary, to be honest and that is no different for the gnostics) but that doesn't mean God is male. And what of the place of the Theotokos and St. Mary Magdalene in the east? Not to mention all the other female saints. There's ample evidence of high regard for the feminine within orthodox Christianity if one ignores the ignorant rants of people such as the moron novelliest. And then look to some of the rather deeply misogynistic cultures of antiquity - all the goddesses in their pantheons don't appear to have developed into much of a regard for femininity, do they?
[quote] I don't mean to say that any religion with goddesses is completely true and wonderful. What I do want to imply is this:

Gnostics may not be all about the feminine, but I still believe it was there, after reading the texts for myself and studying what scholars had to say about it.
This I can agree with without problem, and I hope that you can agree that the same is true of my faith. I am of an opinion that there is, at least among some gnostic sects, less of a regard for females than amongst the orthodox of the time, but that is my opinion, not established fact. Feel free to disagree. What I won't accept is when some neo-gnostics take later and geographically limited perversions of the faith, claim that it is the normative orthodox view and anachronistically read it back into earlier history.

I don't and cannot agree with gnosticism. I do believe that it is part of a pre-existing movement of syncretic mystery cults rather than being the actual teaching of Christ. I'm sure that none of this comes as a surprise to you. I do, however, have every respect for those who genuinely hold to it and do not constantly bash my faith, just as I do for Muslims, Jews, Hindus, whatever - unfortunately there is a tendency amongst many neo-gnostics (particularly the moron's followers) to do just that so I apologise if sometimes my frustration with them spills out in a way which appears to be aimed at you. It isn't. I have every respect for you and I am genuinely trying to understand your faith.

James

Buttons*

10-18-2007, 12:48 PM

but when you say discarded you imply that they were at least considered - they never were. That may be the case, but there was no reason to burn the texts in the process. I remember one of the people I read had something to say concerning Early Church leaders order the destruction (that's a heavy term, but it's early - I can't think very well. lol) of anything that wasn't in the canon.

My only real issue is this: If there is more written about Yeshua, why wouldn't Christians want to find out what it is? Obviously, you have read quite a bit on the subject, as have I. I've read that Early Church leaders chose texts according to what message they wanted to send to other Christians in order to unify them. I've also read that even the four main Gospels weren't written until long after Yeshua was gone. (This last one might not be true. It's been a while since I read neo Gnostic propaganda - if you'd like to call it that.) I think I remember that the Pauline texts weren't written until a few centures after the death of Yeshua. Again, I could be off on a few details, but I do recall that not all the texts were written at the time of Yeshua's existance. However, I also recall that Gnostic texts were formed at the time of the other Gospels.

I guess it doesn't make sense to me why they weren't even considered. This is a very mormon argument, but: If there was more written about Yeshua, why wouldn't people want in on it? Now, when the mormon missionary said that to me, I said, "I completely agree" *giggle* but it was for a totally different reason.

Most of the Gnostic texts were discounted as soon as they appeared (and most of those are no earlier than the latter half of the 2nd century).
Is discounted not the same as discarded? I don't mean to say that Gnostic texts were in the canon and then thrown out. I meant to say that Gnostic texts weren't even considered - subsequently discarded - and left to their fate. :D *dramatic music plays*

I'm not really comparing faiths. You keep thinking I'm meaning Orthodoxy as in my faith (and though I do believe my faith is that faith in a way no other is, it has developed over the centuries as well), when in actual fact I'm using the term Orthodox in opposition to Gnostic. In the era we are talking about (prior to the major Christological controversies of the later centuries), you really have three main groups, the Ebionites, the Gnostics and those that went on to become known as the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian churches. The Orthodox in my discussions with you are the forebears of all four of the latter churches. Hopefully that's clarified things. *blush* I'm sorry I didn't understand the first time. :duh: I get it now.

Because I'm interested in what you believe and why. I often discuss these sorts of things with people of other faiths despite my not agreeing with them and I don't pretend to agree when I don't. It's not out of a wish to convert you or anything like that I'm just interested and when I'm interested in something I'm not shy about offering my opinions. I don't mean to offend or anything. I hope you understand. I do have an issue with gnosticism because it is a faith with which I cannot agree on many, many levels, but that doesn't mean your opinion doesn't matter. Indeed what could possibly matter more than your opinion if I'm asking about your beliefs? I wasn't really sure. I got a bit defensive because I could feel a slightly hostile tone. I need to remember that it's not always about me... I have issues with other faiths too, and it's difficult to write questions that aren't loaded. (Or that we think we know the answer to, lol.) I do this on MANY more occasions than I would like, so it's not a big deal. Thanks for clarifying, though. :)

Nor do I, which is why I believe the different attitude to be more fundamental - but I could, of course, be wrong. Sadly, neo-Gnostics don't have that much tradition to go off of. (I really don't like the term neo-Gnostic, but it helps for the discussion. I wish there wasn't THAT much of a difference... but apparently there is?) I just have to read my Nag Hammadi Library "Bible" and follow what my heart feels according to what's on the page. Most of the time, it's a pretty great feeling. I don't interact with other Gnostics - partly because I haven't found any. Some people put too much emphasis on the things that are irrelevant in my eyes. I guess it comes down to personal preference. Plus, there are too many people who follow the teachings of the moronic novellist and call it Gnosticism. :rolleyes:

Thanks. I do. I hasten to add that that does not mean that I think that neo-gnostics are all misogynists or that modern orthodox Christians are all feminists. It's just that historically I see nothing to suggest that the gnostics had a more enlightened attitude about females than their contemporaries.I'll agree to that. I guess I just enjoy that books of Gnosticism discuss the feminine and they appear to hold women in quite a high regard. Again, I've got little to no history to work with. In my eyes, for every part of Gnosticism that could be taken as mysnogystic, there are even more parts that discuss divine feminine and celebrating the divine that is within. If you'd like, I can find some texts to post?

I didn't mean that there was nothing of the feminine in there. How could you have a faith that ignored half the population? I get annoyed, however, with the constant accusations against the Church which are made that can only be made if one ignores inconvenient facts like the passage I posted and the place of the feminine within the orthodox Church. I'm sure you know only too well what I mean - I've posted on it before. Yes, when I was a baby Gnostic (lol, that sounds funny) I had a big problem with early Church leaders because it seemed to me that they ignored a good half of the things concerning Yeshua and the feminine out! I guess, in my head, all Abrahamic religions are men religions. It isn't too bad in context, considering the time and reasons things were written, however, Abrahamic faith lends itself to being more in favor of the man in control as opposed to a partnership. Sometimes, misguided men use this evidence to assume total control over women. "See here? It says to obey your husband!"

In Gnosticism, I haven't seen anything like that, and I think the texts don't lend themselves to the idea of control on either end. Gnosticism is not a religion for the extreme feminist, nor for the abusive male. If it had been in the past, I'm willing to wager that the people reading those texts were ignorant of the point of what was written.

When it comes to the spiritual side: Early Christianity was more in tune with spirituality than I feel it is today. Another reason I don't follow the newer branches of the faith. Anyway, when these texts were written a divine feminine was present in the texts. It seems, to me, to take more searching in the canonical texts than it does in Gnostic texts to find written evidence of it.

Why is it necessary to have goddesses and does the presence or absence of them really speak much as to the place of the feminine within the religion? It's not necessary, but lots of people put extra crap into religion to ruin what the intended purpose was. :( If ancient Gnostics did, in fact, believe that women were inferior in more ways than five, (sorry, humor again) then I think they were wrong. There are so many good texts about spiritual equality within Gnostic texts. As mainstream Christians maintain that the Pope ordering the Crusades was misguided, so I believe that any Gnostic with mysogynistic tendencies is getting it wrong. I haven't read any evidence for that, though.

I mean, for us God is neither male nor female. Christ was Incarnate as a man (but that would have been necessary, to be honest and that is no different for the gnostics) but that doesn't mean God is male. My former encounter with Christianity enforced that God was male. I didn't really agree with that. Eastern Christianity probably has it right :p at least, to the point where they don't go on and on about God being male.

And then look to some of the rather deeply misogynistic cultures of antiquity - all the goddesses in their pantheons don't appear to have developed into much of a regard for femininity, do they? Which is why I then said, "Not that having goddesses makes the religion right or good" (paraphrasing... I can't remember what I actually said.) But it just seems to me that there is recognition of the divine feminine - more plainly than any other Abrahamic texts I have read. Orthodoxy is probably as close as it gets to the early Chruch.

When it comes to Greek and Roman gods and goddesses, though, they looked at them as if they were actual people. Gnostics could have made that mistake, but then they wouldn't be in real understanding of the authors of the texts. That's my opinion.

This I can agree with without problem, and I hope that you can agree that the same is true of my faith. I am of an opinion that there is, at least among some gnostic sects, less of a regard for females than amongst the orthodox of the time, but that is my opinion, not established fact. Feel free to disagree. Well sure! If that's what your faith is about, who am I to disagree?

continued...

Buttons*

10-18-2007, 12:49 PM

What I won't accept is when some neo-gnostics take later and geographically limited perversions of the faith, claim that it is the normative orthodox view and anachronistically read it back into earlier history. I might have been guilty of that in an earlier post. From the things I have read, it seems to be true. I'll reword it here:

Gnostic writings were written around the time that some Christian texts were written. By this I mean within 5 centuries of each other. I remember a Bible teacher who told me that the reason the canonical gospels were written so late is because the message of "Jesus" magically helped them to write an accurate portrayal of his life. They had similar content (Yeshua) but not similar ideas (mysticism/literalism). There is good evidence that the gospels are copies of others, because their content is SO similar. A professor at my university who is an expert in Jewish studies (and who translates newer findings as well) even said that the canonical gospels are copies of eachother.

I don't and cannot agree with gnosticism. I do believe that it is part of a pre-existing movement of syncretic mystery cults rather than being the actual teaching of Christ. I'm sure that none of this comes as a surprise to you. heehee, yeah, no surprises there :)

I do, however, have every respect for those who genuinely hold to it and do not constantly bash my faith, just as I do for Muslims, Jews, Hindus, whatever - unfortunately there is a tendency amongst many neo-gnostics (particularly the moron's followers) to do just that so I apologise if sometimes my frustration with them spills out in a way which appears to be aimed at you. It isn't. I have every respect for you and I am genuinely trying to understand your faith.

James
That's alright James. I've done my fair share of Christian bashing... any baby Gnostic would feel compelled to do so. I'm over that now, though. I haven't ever picked on Orthodoxy. Mostly I picked on modern Christianity because it is SO far removed from what Christianity was. Does that make sense? I can't even imagine how bad it is when you're dealing with the folowers of "The DaVinci Crap." :p I'd be frustrated too.

~Ashley

James the Persian

10-19-2007, 05:02 AM

That may be the case, but there was no reason to burn the texts in the process. I remember one of the people I read had something to say concerning Early Church leaders order the destruction (that's a heavy term, but it's early - I can't think very well. lol) of anything that wasn't in the canon.

That's not actually accurate. The Church came up with canons forbidding their use but in the Empire after its establishment as a Christian nation, the civil government enforced Church canon as law. It was the emperor (Justinian I believe) who ordered the destruction of texts.

My only real issue is this: If there is more written about Yeshua, why wouldn't Christians want to find out what it is?

That depends on who the authors are surely? I mean plenty of people write about famous figures whether they have any connection to them or not - you can't simply take it that something is true because of who the subject is. Two of the most important criteria for judging a text were authorship and universality of use within the Church - which puts all the gostic texts out as candidates from the get go. They were authored late and weren't used generally in the Church at all (only odd texts in isolated areas).
Obviously, you have read quite a bit on the subject, as have I. I've read that Early Church leaders chose texts according to what message they wanted to send to other Christians in order to unify them. I've also read that even the four main Gospels weren't written until long after Yeshua was gone.

They were all written by the end of the 1st century - that's not just Christian belief but scholarly concensus. Most of the evangelists were disciples of the Apostles who wrote down what they had been taught (John being the exception, as he was an Apostle). There is some issue taken with whether or not the authors have been correctly identified but I find the counter-arguments weak, but anyway 30 to 60 years after the event and well within the lifetimes of the second generation of Christians, doesn't seem a long time to me.
(This last one might not be true. It's been a while since I read neo Gnostic propaganda - if you'd like to call it that.) I think I remember that the Pauline texts weren't written until a few centures after the death of Yeshua.

No that's definitely nonsense. Paul is quoted very early. His epistles certainly existed in the early years.
Again, I could be off on a few details, but I do recall that not all the texts were written at the time of Yeshua's existance. However, I also recall that Gnostic texts were formed at the time of the other Gospels.

No, none of the texts were written prior to the Crucifixion and the gnostic texts are certainly later, even acording to the concensus of non-Christian scholars. There is only one Gnostic text that anyone suggests is contemporary with the canonical Gospels and that is the Gospel of Thomas. There are serious doubts that even that is early that early 2nd century (which would put it a couple of decades after John). None of the others are earlier than late second century and they were being denounced as soon as they appeared. There really is no doubt that the gnostic texts are later compositions.

I guess it doesn't make sense to me why they weren't even considered. This is a very mormon argument, but: If there was more written about Yeshua, why wouldn't people want in on it? Now, when the mormon missionary said that to me, I said, "I completely agree" *giggle* but it was for a totally different reason.

Yes, what you say is very true with respect to the Mormons - with us it doesn't work quite so well. I would use similar arguments myself with some people when it comes to extra-canonical texts like the Didache or Shepherd of Hermas.

Is discounted not the same as discarded? I don't mean to say that Gnostic texts were in the canon and then thrown out. I meant to say that Gnostic texts weren't even considered - subsequently discarded - and left to their fate. :D *dramatic music plays*

Not exactly. I mean that they were denounced as heretical as soon as they came to light. That was based on their authorship, the fact that they were new and their contents. The difference here is that they were being denounced long before there was any real effort to form a canon.

*blush* I'm sorry I didn't understand the first time. :duh: I get it now.

I'm glad.

I wasn't really sure. I got a bit defensive because I could feel a slightly hostile tone. I need to remember that it's not always about me... I have issues with other faiths too, and it's difficult to write questions that aren't loaded. (Or that we think we know the answer to, lol.) I do this on MANY more occasions than I would like, so it's not a big deal. Thanks for clarifying, though. :)

I apologise if I came across in a way other than intended - sometimes thinking about morons tends to infuriate me and I'm sure that spills out. If there was a hostile tone it was unintentional.

I just have to read my Nag Hammadi Library "Bible" and follow what my heart feels according to what's on the page.
This is the Protestant approach to Scripture, hence why I am apt to point out that neo-Gnostics aren't really recreating the classical gnostic faiths so much as making a best guess. The tradition you use is necessarily modern (though you freely admit this which puts you leagues ahead of the sola scripturists when it comes to intellectual integrity) and so as a result your conclusions are modern too. That doesn't necessarily make them bad or wrong, but it will make them different. Unfortunately you don't really have much choice in the matter - what annoys me is when neo-Gnostics share the attitude of the 'Bible interprets itself' Protestant crowd and claim that they absolutely are practicing classical Gnosticism rather than reconstructing a faith based on it.

I'll agree to that. I guess I just enjoy that books of Gnosticism discuss the feminine and they appear to hold women in quite a high regard. Again, I've got little to no history to work with. In my eyes, for every part of Gnosticism that could be taken as mysnogystic, there are even more parts that discuss divine feminine and celebrating the divine that is within. If you'd like, I can find some texts to post?

No need. I agree with you and as you don't pull isolated bits of say Paul out to batter me with I feel no need to do the same to you. You appear to understand that the same holds true of gnostic texts as orthodox ones - they all have their inconvenient passages and context is everything.

Yes, when I was a baby Gnostic (lol, that sounds funny) I had a big problem with early Church leaders because it seemed to me that they ignored a good half of the things concerning Yeshua and the feminine out! I guess, in my head, all Abrahamic religions are men religions. It isn't too bad in context, considering the time and reasons things were written, however, Abrahamic faith lends itself to being more in favor of the man in control as opposed to a partnership. Sometimes, misguided men use this evidence to assume total control over women. "See here? It says to obey your husband!"

Yes, those people exist. We have them too, but it's not so common (usually Orthodox men who mistreat their wives make no pretence of justifying it religiously - it's a cultural thing, which doesn't make it any better, but at least it's more honest) as amongst certain fundamentalist Protestant groups. Had you had much exposure to Orthodoxy before being a 'baby Gnostic'? You see, I would have thought the place of female saints (the Theotokos and St. Mary Magdalene, Equal to the Apostles, or even Apostle to the Apostles as we call her, the rest of the Myrrh Bearing women, St,. Mary of Egypt, to name some of the most prominent) and the extremely high regard for the priest's wife (Preoteasa in Romanian, literally priestess, and equally important to her husband - they really are considered one flesh by us) would mitigate against such a view.

In Gnosticism, I haven't seen anything like that, and I think the texts don't lend themselves to the idea of control on either end. Gnosticism is not a religion for the extreme feminist, nor for the abusive male. If it had been in the past, I'm willing to wager that the people reading those texts were ignorant of the point of what was written.

Given that our texts have been abused the way they have and yours contain passages that could be seen in an even worse light than some of ours, I don't share your view. I appreciate that you wouldn't have done it, but had Gnosticism survived, do you honestly believe that there wouldn't be men using the passage I quoted as justification for mistreating women? The difference is that gnosticism died out, not that it is inherently unable to be misused in such a way.

When it comes to the spiritual side: Early Christianity was more in tune with spirituality than I feel it is today. Another reason I don't follow the newer branches of the faith.

Well, some of us have preserved that, but I don't disagree with you.

Anyway, when these texts were written a divine feminine was present in the texts. It seems, to me, to take more searching in the canonical texts than it does in Gnostic texts to find written evidence of it.

In just the canon? Maybe, but I'm not restricted to that, am I? For us it is, literally, a measuring stich, not the be all and end all and when you take into account the whole of Tradition, I see more than enough evidence of a high regard for the feminine.

James the Persian

10-19-2007, 05:05 AM

Ctd.

My former encounter with Christianity enforced that God was male. I didn't really agree with that. Eastern Christianity probably has it right :p at least, to the point where they don't go on and on about God being male.

God, for us, is Trinity. How could that possibly be male? In fact, it is Anthropos (mankind) not Andros (male) that is made in God's image. In terms of the interpretation of creation we see od making man in His image at which point there is neither male nor female and then taking the female out and making woman, leaving man - if that makes sense?

Which is why I then said, "Not that having goddesses makes the religion right or good" (paraphrasing... I can't remember what I actually said.) But it just seems to me that there is recognition of the divine feminine - more plainly than any other Abrahamic texts I have read. Orthodoxy is probably as close as it gets to the early Chruch.
I understand that. I think, personally, that it's because thy came out of a movement of essentially polytheistic mystery cults which meant they had a tendency to personify the feminine in a way that monotheists cannot. That just makes the feminine more obvious, though, in my opinion.

When it comes to Greek and Roman gods and goddesses, though, they looked at them as if they were actual people. Gnostics could have made that mistake, but then they wouldn't be in real understanding of the authors of the texts. That's my opinion.

Some did, some didn't. It seems to have been far more similar to modern Hinduism. Some even worshipped an unknown God that the gods were merely personifications of aspects of. Peasant (truly pagan in the original sense of the word) religion was very different from that of the philosophers (where they even had one). I think there's less of a disjunct than you believe between the two.

James the Persian

10-19-2007, 05:13 AM

I might have been guilty of that in an earlier post. From the things I have read, it seems to be true. I'll reword it here:

Gnostic writings were written around the time that some Christian texts were written. By this I mean within 5 centuries of each other. I remember a Bible teacher who told me that the reason the canonical gospels were written so late is because the message of "Jesus" magically helped them to write an accurate portrayal of his life. They had similar content (Yeshua) but not similar ideas (mysticism/literalism). There is good evidence that the gospels are copies of others, because their content is SO similar. A professor at my university who is an expert in Jewish studies (and who translates newer findings as well) even said that the canonical gospels are copies of eachother.

No, actually I wasn't thinking of any of your earlier posts. I was thinking of other people in other places. I was explaining something that frustrates me rather than accusing you of doing so.
heehee, yeah, no surprises there :)
Didn't imagine there would be

That's alright James. I've done my fair share of Christian bashing... any baby Gnostic would feel compelled to do so. I'm over that now, though. I haven't ever picked on Orthodoxy. Mostly I picked on modern Christianity because it is SO far removed from what Christianity was. Does that make sense?

Yes. I'm glad you're over the anti-Christian nonsense. It makes for more pleasant discussions.
I can't even imagine how bad it is when you're dealing with the folowers of "The DaVinci Crap." :p I'd be frustrated too.
Well, imagine that you're dealing with someone who doesn't admit that their interpretation is opinion (it's FACT!!! - Dan said so), has little or no understanding of early Church history (or any history really), has absolutely no grasp of the theology they are criticising and swallows any and every baseless myth available so long as it is an attack on the Church Fathers/Ecumenical Councils/Catholic Church etc. It's actually rather like arguing with a Protestant fundamentalist (emphasis on mental) and yes, it's very frustrating.

James

Buttons*

10-20-2007, 05:12 PM

That's not actually accurate. The Church came up with canons forbidding their use but in the Empire after its establishment as a Christian nation, the civil government enforced Church canon as law. It was the emperor (Justinian I believe) who ordered the destruction of texts. I knew someone did it. I'm sorry that I posted inaccurate info, I don't have all my books with me. It's been a while since I cared about the history of the Church, lol.

That depends on who the authors are surely? I mean plenty of people write about famous figures whether they have any connection to them or not - you can't simply take it that something is true because of who the subject is. Truly, but there are things in the Bible, written by people who never met Yeshua either. I don't know why I should follow one path just because it's been accepted by a select group of people. Oral tradition was still a rampant thing in the day. I seem to think that several of the books of the OT and the NT weren't put on papyrus until a much later date than their origin. I will say, for example, creation story. It wasn't written at the time of creation, or by people who actually saw it.

They were all written by the end of the 1st century - that's not just Christian belief but scholarly concensus. Most of the evangelists were disciples of the Apostles who wrote down what they had been taught (John being the exception, as he was an Apostle). There is some issue taken with whether or not the authors have been correctly identified but I find the counter-arguments weak, but anyway 30 to 60 years after the event and well within the lifetimes of the second generation of Christians, doesn't seem a long time to me. I don't think there's that much of a difference between the end of the first century and the beginning of the second century. You have to admit, that's a bit different than 6 centuries down the line. Even so, the oral tradition could have existed during the time of the life of Yeshua. Again, we weren't there, so I could be wrong. There's nothing that makes Gnosticism any less valid, in my opinion. (heehee, so maybe I'm a little biased.) In any case, what's the difference between being taught something and writing it down in Christianity and Gnosticism? (Assuming that some authors weren't correctly identified in both faiths.) The date of the writings is the only thing that makes one more valid than the other?

No that's definitely nonsense. Paul is quoted very early. His epistles certainly existed in the early years. I couldn't remember exactly what the woman said, this was about four years ago now.

There really is no doubt that the gnostic texts are later compositions.We wouldn't ever know if they had been burned.

Yes, what you say is very true with respect to the Mormons - with us it doesn't work quite so well. I would use similar arguments myself with some people when it comes to extra-canonical texts like the Didache or Shepherd of Hermas. You'll have to educate me on those! I've never heard of Didache or Hermas.

Not exactly. I mean that they were denounced as heretical as soon as they came to light. That was based on their authorship, the fact that they were new and their contents. The difference here is that they were being denounced long before there was any real effort to form a canon. Hopefully you don't find me arrogant for saying this, but that could be because they didn't want to confuse the new Christians with works that are spiritually more complex. It's much easier to take a literal work and apply it to faith. This is just my opinion, though. You could be right, but I see a good reason why Gnostic texts were discounted. To me, it's not a very good one.

I apologise if I came across in a way other than intended - sometimes thinking about morons tends to infuriate me and I'm sure that spills out. If there was a hostile tone it was unintentional. No worries, I've done it too :)

This is the Protestant approach to Scripture, Honestly, I'd rather be compared to pagans, LOL.

hence why I am apt to point out that neo-Gnostics aren't really recreating the classical gnostic faiths so much as making a best guess. Yes, I am making a best guess effort in my faith. From all I have read in footnotes in translations, it seems as though I'm making a pretty good (more Mystic than Protestant) assumption.

The tradition you use is necessarily modern (though you freely admit this which puts you leagues ahead of the sola scripturists when it comes to intellectual integrity) and so as a result your conclusions are modern too. That doesn't necessarily make them bad or wrong, but it will make them different. Unfortunately you don't really have much choice in the matter - what annoys me is when neo-Gnostics share the attitude of the 'Bible interprets itself' Protestant crowd and claim that they absolutely are practicing classical Gnosticism rather than reconstructing a faith based on it. Well in that case, they actually are ignorant. We don't have traditions to go off of. Though, I wish we did. Some minor traditions and sayings are mentioned in the Gnostic texts, but I'm not so sure that they're meant in a literal way. I don't have help in that department.

Had you had much exposure to Orthodoxy before being a 'baby Gnostic'? You see, I would have thought the place of female saints (the Theotokos and St. Mary Magdalene, Equal to the Apostles, or even Apostle to the Apostles as we call her, the rest of the Myrrh Bearing women, St,. Mary of Egypt, to name some of the most prominent) and the extremely high regard for the priest's wife (Preoteasa in Romanian, literally priestess, and equally important to her husband - they really are considered one flesh by us) would mitigate against such a view. The only knew that my Grandma attended an Orthodox Church as a child, that it was similar to Catholocism, and that the Churches had an extrodinary feeling. (I went to St. Constantine and Elena Church in Hawaii once with her.)

Given that our texts have been abused the way they have and yours contain passages that could be seen in an even worse light than some of ours, I don't share your view. I appreciate that you wouldn't have done it, but had Gnosticism survived, do you honestly believe that there wouldn't be men using the passage I quoted as justification for mistreating women? I have a cynical view of the world, most of the time. I'm sure that if a Gnostic man happened to be abusive, he could have found "reasons" for doing so. Any abusive person will find a reason and a way to do that. I'm sure even if Gnosticism became revived somehow, that eventually there would be abusice Gnostic men sometime. That's just the way humans are.

In just the canon? Maybe, but I'm not restricted to that, am I? For us it is, literally, a measuring stich, not the be all and end all and when you take into account the whole of Tradition, I see more than enough evidence of a high regard for the feminine.
I'm not sure if you're restricted to canonical texts only. I don't know too much about Orthodoxy. I'm sure that tradition has a major role in how things go down. Protestantism definately sticks to a canon-only belief, and I know more about Protestants, Episcoplains, and Non-Denominationals than any other branch. Honestly, researching the whole of Christian faith is kind of annoying.

I feel that there should only be one Christianity. That's something else that upsets me. Had Gnosticism survived through time, though, there would probably be branches too. I guess I have the luxury of following a religion that died out early enough for me to make my own traditions. Though, I'd never looked at it that way before. :shrug:

Buttons*

10-20-2007, 05:25 PM

God, for us, is Trinity. How could that possibly be male? In fact, it is Anthropos (mankind) not Andros (male) that is made in God's image. In terms of the interpretation of creation we see od making man in His image at which point there is neither male nor female and then taking the female out and making woman, leaving man - if that makes sense? Sure, but is that strictly in a literal sense?

I understand that. I think, personally, that it's because thy came out of a movement of essentially polytheistic mystery cults which meant they had a tendency to personify the feminine in a way that monotheists cannot. That just makes the feminine more obvious, though, in my opinion. Probably, but making that little bit obvious leaves the mind to ponder even more mystic mystery junk. :p I guess since Gnostics aren't so focused on what's feminine or not, that there's more they can do to work on making them whole instead of finding the other half. This is just my opinion though. I dunno what ancient Gnostics did.

Some did, some didn't. It seems to have been far more similar to modern Hinduism. Some even worshipped an unknown God that the gods were merely personifications of aspects of. That's probably closer to what I think of Gnosticism and it's "gods."

Peasant (truly pagan in the original sense of the word) religion was very different from that of the philosophers (where they even had one). I think there's less of a disjunct than you believe between the two.
I don't know if Gnostics were Sophists, but I don't believe they were. (I can't believe that, or there's no reason to be Gnostic, lol.) I'd like to think they had a basic knowledge of philosophy - at least to come to some of the conclusions that they did. Some of the things I read in Gnostic texts mirror that of teachings of Socrates. *gasp* At least, that's how I see it.

jordanstratford

11-11-2007, 06:27 PM

Buttons*

11-11-2007, 06:46 PM

Hello.

I'm reluctant to wade in here, as having read the entire thread there are several points which could use clarification, and I'd be unsure of where to begin. Also I suspect it'd be rude, so I'll start with an introduction.
Feel free to jump right in. No one bites (badly) :)

I'm a Gnostic priest (Apostolic Johannite Church) and author of books on religion and spirituality - specifically Gnosticism. I dislike the term "neo-Gnosticism" as it is pejorative: Our understanding and practice is actually closer to our own roots than are most modern faiths to theirs.
That's awesome! I've always wanted to meet a priest! Where do you practice? Want to make an intro thread in the Gnostic room? I'd love to ask you some questions!

I've added a fair chunk of stuff to the "Gnosticism Summary" thread, as the wiki material posted there is badly in need of updating.

Anyway, I'm here to poke around the threads and learn from your experiences, and I look forward to getting to know each of you.

Many blessings,

Jordan
Thanks for adding stuff. I didn't really look through it... partly because I think Wiki is a horrid source for info to begin with. I hope you poke around quite a bit! It's nice to have someone who knows what you're on about. Good to meet ya!

:hug:

(Yay, two Gnostics :D )

Ðanisty

11-12-2007, 12:08 AM

Hello.

I'm reluctant to wade in here, as having read the entire thread there are several points which could use clarification, and I'd be unsure of where to begin. Also I suspect it'd be rude, so I'll start with an introduction.

I'm a Gnostic priest (Apostolic Johannite Church) and author of books on religion and spirituality - specifically Gnosticism. I dislike the term "neo-Gnosticism" as it is pejorative: Our understanding and practice is actually closer to our own roots than are most modern faiths to theirs.

I've added a fair chunk of stuff to the "Gnosticism Summary" thread, as the wiki material posted there is badly in need of updating.

Anyway, I'm here to poke around the threads and learn from your experiences, and I look forward to getting to know each of you.

Many blessings,

JordanWe're always more than happy to have members share their own knowledge on a subject. The wikis are more or less there as a starting point. Welcome to the forum! I look forward to reading your posts. :D

James the Persian

11-12-2007, 03:50 AM

Hello.

I'm reluctant to wade in here, as having read the entire thread there are several points which could use clarification, and I'd be unsure of where to begin. Also I suspect it'd be rude, so I'll start with an introduction.

I'm a Gnostic priest (Apostolic Johannite Church) and author of books on religion and spirituality - specifically Gnosticism. I dislike the term "neo-Gnosticism" as it is pejorative: Our understanding and practice is actually closer to our own roots than are most modern faiths to theirs.

I've added a fair chunk of stuff to the "Gnosticism Summary" thread, as the wiki material posted there is badly in need of updating.

Anyway, I'm here to poke around the threads and learn from your experiences, and I look forward to getting to know each of you.

Many blessings,

Jordan
Even I won't bite and when I say neo-Gnostic I'm not using it as a pejorative but in the same way I'd use neo-Pagan for reconstructionist Druidry and the like. Neo-Gnosticism is, after all, the reconstruction of a religion once dead.

I might bite a little if you try and tell me we aren't close to our roots (I'll make it gentle though). Seeing as we still use a Liturgy on occasion that is older than some of the Nag Hammadi texts and even our newest one is only as modern as St. John Chrysostom, you'd have a very hard time arguing otherwise.

James

Broken Winged Birdy

11-12-2007, 11:48 AM

Someone asked a while back about gnostic marriages. And you said that there are no records, my question is, how past oriented is your faith. I mean, a lot of stuff is missing from the records I am sure, so how do you deal with that?

Also, I think I understand basic Gnostic theology (It is very much like Zurvanism, if you have any idea what that is.) But, how do you view life after death?

Buttons*

11-12-2007, 01:50 PM

Someone asked a while back about gnostic marriages. And you said that there are no records, my question is, how past oriented is your faith. I mean, a lot of stuff is missing from the records I am sure, so how do you deal with that?
It can't really be too past oriented... since there are no records. Since the Gnostics stemmed from Jewish and Greek ideals, I'd imagine it's a mix between ancient Judaism and ancient Greek marriages? LOL. I was going to ask the new Gnostic Priest about that actually. It might be cool to have a Gnostic wedding someday if it's possible.

How do I deal with it? Well, I'm not too bothered by it. It's not my fault my texts were desicrated and destroyed along with the people who followed it. I can't undo the past, so I just deal with it much in the same way that Christians are Christians without Yeshua guiding them. *shrug* Same stuff to me.

Also, I think I understand basic Gnostic theology (It is very much like Zurvanism, if you have any idea what that is.) But, how do you view life after death?I actually don't know what that is. It does tend to come off as duaistic, but I think it's more like "halves and opposites make a whole." The ones who are whole don't die. :) (And don't take that literally, you silly people!)

I don't remember what death was like, so I can't really say what it is. That would be ignorant of me. What do I speculate to happen? We die, and those who are whole find their way back to the One. Light. Beauty....on and on. We get there, and are One with all. Physically, we get buried and worms eat us! :D

Does that help? I tend to be a little silly.

Buttons*

11-12-2007, 01:54 PM

Even I won't bite and when I say neo-Gnostic I'm not using it as a pejorative but in the same way I'd use neo-Pagan for reconstructionist Druidry and the like. Neo-Gnosticism is, after all, the reconstruction of a religion once dead.

I might bite a little if you try and tell me we aren't close to our roots (I'll make it gentle though). Seeing as we still use a Liturgy on occasion that is older than some of the Nag Hammadi texts and even our newest one is only as modern as St. John Chrysostom, you'd have a very hard time arguing otherwise.

James

Somehow I don't think he was talking about you so much as modern Protestants and the like. You know, the ones who have changed drastically over the past 1000 years or so :p

Broken Winged Birdy

11-12-2007, 02:15 PM

That does help.

And Zurvanism is an old extinct branch of Zoroastrainism that believes at first there was One, and that One had a doubt that broke the One into two, a Demiurge like deity, not neccesarily evil, just imperfect and chaotic, and a perfect good deity. The Demiurge sought to destroy the perfect and rule creation, while the perfect only sought harmony and balance.

Buttons*

11-12-2007, 02:18 PM

jordanstratford

11-12-2007, 03:09 PM

Neo-Gnosticism is, after all, the reconstruction of a religion once dead.

Not dead. Embedded. One could be uncharitable and suggest "parasitic", which would at least be a good metaphor (but not very nice).

I might bite a little if you try and tell me we aren't close to our roots

I would never suggest such a thing. Orthodox churches have the greatest continuity in terms of liturgy and praxis than any other form of Christianity.

Seeing as we still use a Liturgy on occasion that is older than some of the Nag Hammadi texts...

"Some" being the operative word. Thunder: Perfect Mind is at least 160 BCE.

Someone asked a while back about gnostic marriages. And you said that there are no records

Actually there are records. The Gospel of Philip outlines Gnostic sacramental theology, and there are mentions in Thomas to same (the 'five trees'). Valentinian Gnosticism had the same rites as the Roman church because they considered themselves part of it.

Also, I think I understand basic Gnostic theology (It is very much like Zurvanism, if you have any idea what that is.) But, how do you view life after death?

Only later does Zoroastrian dualism enter into the equation, with the Manichaens (who get lumped in with the Gnostics even though the Manichaeans rejected gnosis, so it's a bit silly). The Valentinian Gnostics were panentheists ("God is everything, and then some") which is a spin on acosmic monism.

Life after death: Different schools differ greatly (no surprise there) but the most common theme seems to be one of "dissolution into the Fullness". Our personality does not survive death, but our essence, a Spark of the Divine, pre-exists us and is immortal.

Broken Winged Birdy

11-12-2007, 03:19 PM

Quote:
Also, I think I understand basic Gnostic theology (It is very much like Zurvanism, if you have any idea what that is.) But, how do you view life after death?
Only later does Zoroastrian dualism enter into the equation, with the Manichaens (who get lumped in with the Gnostics even though the Manichaeans rejected gnosis, so it's a bit silly). The Valentinian Gnostics were panentheists ("God is everything, and then some") which is a spin on acosmic monism.

Life after death: Different schools differ greatly (no surprise there) but the most common theme seems to be one of "dissolution into the Fullness". Our personality does not survive death, but our essence, a Spark of the Divine, pre-exists us and is immortal. http://www.allbeliefs.com/../../images/swirl/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.allbeliefs.com/../../newreply.php?do=newreply&p=17658)
I thought all Gnostics were Panentheists, it seems implicit int he message. (Plus it is the coolest ever.)

Are you saying that Manichaenism entered Gnostic belief before Zoroastrian beliefs did. If so, how can that be, Mani validated Zoroaster, and came long after Him. If you mean that Zoroastrian beliefs entered Gnosticism through Manichaenism, then that makes sense. Mani is a bit too dualistic for me. But Zoroaster is my homey.

The Divine Spark is what I would have guessed from Gnostic beliefs in general. It fits in I think

jordanstratford

11-12-2007, 03:24 PM

Are you saying that Manichaenism entered Gnostic belief before Zoroastrian beliefs did

No, I don't think I was clear, sorry. I don't see Mani in the Gn continuum at all. But Manichaeanism incorporates Zoroastrianism AFTER the Sethian, Valentinian, Thomasine and Hermetic schools of Gnosticism were well established. Zoroastrian dualism doesn't fit well within those schools. Think of Mani as a fusion of two earlier traditions: Zoroastrianism and Gnosticism. He's his own thing.

Broken Winged Birdy

11-12-2007, 03:28 PM

Ok. Well, he had a little Buddhism thrown in as well.

Broken Winged Birdy

11-12-2007, 03:55 PM

So, your profile says you are an ordained Gnostic priest. What does that mean, who ordained you?

jordanstratford

11-12-2007, 04:16 PM

Well I was ordained in the usual way by my Bishop in a Gnostic Christian Communion with valid apostolic succession. We're a small church and, like most in the Independent Sacramental Movement, have unpaid volunteer clergy. I do weddings and funerals and bless things, I wear a collar, I hold people's hands at the hospital, I get cried on.

While this type of "churchiness" might seem odd for a bunch of heretics, the overwhelming majority of contemporary Gnostics organize themselves this way - even those who live far from Gnostic churches will find Gn clergy to aid them in their practice.

An excellent resource for those wanting to know more about the modern Indie Cath movement is Dr. John Plummer's "The Many Paths of the Independent Sacramental Movement" which profiles a few Gnostic churches, among others.

revtroy

11-13-2007, 12:18 AM

Believe me, I have no intention to lie about my beliefs. I think a simple, "I love Orthodox Churches" would suffice. Well, this is where we get to see if they're truly Christian or if they're just there for the gossip. It'll be alright in either case. I'm not attempting to be the most popular kid there. :)

I have similar positive experiences with Eastern Orthodox churches.

For a few years while I was in formation, the local Gnostic priest would only celebrate the Eucharist once a month in the summer. So, I attended the liturgy at a small American Orthodox parish many times. Even when our priest did hold regular services, I attended Orthodox vespers services regularly.

I really appreciated the atmosphere, the ambiance, and the chanting. I joined in everything, except receiving communion. The priest knew that I was a Gnostic, but it never seemed to be an issue, and we had psychology as a common interest. The deacon/cantor recommended books he thought I'd be interested in, and we discussed Orthodox mysticism to some extent. I really enjoyed my associations and attendance there.

I incorporated other practices as well, such as using EO materials in prayer and contemplation in approaching Advent and Lent, and keeping the lenten fast. So, my participation was quite deep.

Unfortunately, the Orthodox priest requested to move when his wife's parents health deteriorated. Without a priest, there were no regular services.

My experience of E. Orthodox worship has had an influence on my own practice. I use an EO chant during the first censing of the Eucharist, and use chant extensively in other services. There are icons on chapel walls, and some of my own art is strongly influenced by traditional icons.

All in all it was a very positive experience.

Broken Winged Birdy

11-15-2007, 08:37 AM

The demiurge, real spiritual being, or metaphor?

Evil or simply imperfect and as benevolent as possible?

Also, do most of the Gnostics on here subscribe to the school that sees Christ as Logos? And is there room in Gnosticism to see other people as Logos, or who do you view other similar spiritual teachers, like the Buddha?

And finally, do Gnostics have any prophetic/end of days beliefs?

Also, do Gnostics have any unique prayer practices?

I find your conceptions of the divine fascinating and 100% valid, plus you guys have a fun name to write.

Buttons*

11-15-2007, 09:28 AM

The demiurge, real spiritual being, or metaphor? All. Not in the "look, that persony thing over there is a demiurge" kind of way. More like, it's everywhere, in everything - same as Light. :)

Evil or simply imperfect and as benevolent as possible? Depends on the author :p. Ignorant..... so both.

Also, do most of the Gnostics on here subscribe to the school that sees Christ as Logos? I dunno about everyone else, but I tend to. Allegories all the way. :D

And is there room in Gnosticism to see other people as Logos, or who do you view other similar spiritual teachers, like the Buddha? I think there's all kinds of room to see other stories as allegories with a logos type of character. Of course, you should be able to learn from everything. Buddha? I'm not really that knowledgable of him. :sorry:

And finally, do Gnostics have any prophetic/end of days beliefs? I don't think so. Any scripture that mentions it is, I think, in metaphor.

Also, do Gnostics have any unique prayer practices?

I find your conceptions of the divine fascinating and 100% valid, plus you guys have a fun name to write.
*shrug* That question I have no idea about. Unless you cound chanting "oooooooo aaaaaaaaaa eeeeeeeeeee iiiiiiiiiiii ooooooooo" as unique :p

Well, that's why I joined.... so I had a cool name to write :D

:hug:

jordanstratford

11-15-2007, 11:38 AM

Disclaimer: My opinion only, your mileage may vary, I hope it does (we LOVE dissent and debate and different perspectives. It's a Gnostic thing).

The demiurge, real spiritual being, or metaphor?

Metaphor. Demiurge means either "half-creator" or "sub-contractor (made on behalf of the people). Our egos project a world we inhabit daily, but it's only half a world. It's a false world of fear and authority, of parking tickets 9 to 5. That's the kosmos, the system, that is the problem. Some people, as we know, worship the system as though it were God.

Evil or simply imperfect and as benevolent as possible?

Flawed because it's made out of ignorance, literally a lack of divine Gnosis.

Also, do most of the Gnostics on here subscribe to the school that sees Christ as Logos? And is there room in Gnosticism to see other people as Logos, or who do you view other similar spiritual teachers, like the Buddha?

I don't see "Christ" as an historical event, but as the enlightened, annointed Self in total concert with the Fullness. In the first century, many believed that John the Baptist was Christ, and there is still a Gnostic tradition in Iraq, the Mandaeans, who continue to this day. The Mandaeans numbered some 70,000 before the US invasion, and now there are only about 5,000 -7,000 left in their homeland, most have moved to Canada, Australia and Europe as refugees.

As for Buddha, I've described Gnosticism before as "Catholic on the outside, Buddhist on the inside" which is by no means entirely accurate but will get you started.

And finally, do Gnostics have any prophetic/end of days beliefs?

No, and yes. ;-)

1) There are no direct, exclusively Gnostic scriptures which seem to address the issue definitively.

2) If we live in a "world" created by our own fear, ego, and ignorance, ending it certainly seems like a goal - or at least a by-product - of enlightenment. So it's a metaphor.

3) Most Gnostics consider themselves Christian and part of the Body of Christ, and so subscribe to Christian eschatology. There's even one Gnostic church who's creed speaks to the raising of the dead at the end of the world, even though I don't know of anybody in that church that doesn't find the idea both icky and baffling. (omg zombies!) It's in there as they inherited the liturgy from the Liberal Catholic Church, and it's sort of a liturgical fossil.

Also, do Gnostics have any unique prayer practices?

Unique? No. Centering prayer / contemplative prayer and quietism are the most common.

The "ooooooo aaaaaaaaaa eeeeeeeeeee" inscriptions referred to seem to be symbolic of gestural (like a rosary) cycles now lost to us, with each vowel being perhaps a breath, a bow, that sort of thing. Think "five hail marys" and you've got the idea.

revtroy

11-16-2007, 06:07 AM

The demiurge, real spiritual being, or metaphor?
More of a universal mythic pattern, we find it for real within ourselves as the ego, as the limited god-image, we see it outside ourselves as aspects of the cosmos, and the overall flawed/limited nature of the cosmos. So, yes, but not in an anthropomorphic being sitting in one location sense.

Evil or simply imperfect and as benevolent as possible?

A scripture I like goes: in the world there is good and there is evil, its good is not real good and its evil is not real evil. Gnosticism recognized that there are other forces at work than benevolent ones, these are not necessarily evil, just not benevolent. There is also an inherent flaw in the cosmos. And the cosmos is a place of mixing, spirit and mater, light and darkness, good and evil, etc. So, "as benevolent as possible" isn't a very common aspect of the cosmos.

Also, do most of the Gnostics on here subscribe to the school that sees Christ as Logos?
That is a very common view, and the second most common form of address. We tend to use Christ and Logos fairly frequently, Jesus much less so. "Christ" or "Logos" is a living presence we experience, "Jesus" seems to refer to a particular form in time and space. Or at least more so than the other two. It also get used in the culture in a very literal way. (There are also aspects of the tradition that consider them to be separable beings.)

And is there room in Gnosticism to see other people as Logos, or who do you view other similar spiritual teachers, like the Buddha?
There are different figures than Christ in particular schools in the tradition: John the baptist is the teacher/initiator in the Mandaean tradition, Seth fills that role in the Sethian scriptures (also identified with Christ), Hermes Trismegistus fills that role in the Hermetic texts.

The prophet Mani listed a number of "Messengers of the Light" in addition to Christ, including the Buddha. These are seen as coming into the cosmos with the purpose to teach methods of liberation.

And finally, do Gnostics have any prophetic/end of days beliefs?
There are some references to the end of the cosmos, but not many. Largely they are injunctions to seek liberation now, and not put it off. Gnostic myths are much more focused on the precosmic origins of everything than in specifics about the end. In the Gospel of Thomas when disciples ask Jesus about the end, he says: know you then the beginning that you ask about the end? For where the beginning is, there the end will be.

The focus is on achieving liberation by means of Gnosis. If you succeed, you leave the cosmos behind.

Also, do Gnostics have any unique prayer practices?
There are texts such as the Book of Jeu that appear to be chant books. There are other text that were used in rituals: prayers and hymns. Our Epiphany service is largely chants taken from the book of Jeu, and it is one of my favorite services. I also chant during the censings that are part of the Eucharist services.

There are also texts that deal with sacramental symbols, such as the Gospel of Philip, which can be seen as a collection of writings concerning the Mystery of the Bridal Chamber.

Myth played a primary role, and seems to have done so in an experiential participatory, and probably creative, way. This can be seen as a mystical practice of "entering into" the myth, or "becoming" the myth, in order to experience it and gain Gnosis from it. This certainly occurred in the form of the mysteries (also called sacraments), that are a transformative way to experience an aspect of the mythos. The texts themselves probably served a similar purpose, but we can only speculate.

As far as contemporary Gnostics go, the community of practice that developed and maintained the living traditions of particular Gnostic practices is lost to history. The community of practice that does remain is the Christian sacramental tradition, which is what I practice. The forms are the forms that we have inherited from the tradition, and that have been developed and tested for several centuries, and we remain careful stewards of the tradition. We have kept the form, such as in the case of the Eucharist, and celebrate it in the fullest most symbolic "high church" form, but have replaced preparatory prayers and postcommunion prayers (particularly the creed) with Gnostic texts or more appropriate versions that preserve the form but serve a Gnostic intent.

I find your conceptions of the divine fascinating and 100% valid, plus you guys have a fun name to write.
Well, the name is currently over-used. But as a friend of mine says, "these things come and go, and we're still here."