Gnostic Christianity

[Athelas]

Jesus said, "I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become drunk from the bubbling stream which I have measured out."~Gospel of Thomas 34.30-35.7

"Whoever will drink from my mouth will become as I am, and I myself will become that person, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him." ~Ibid 50.28-30

"His disciples said to him, 'When will the new world come'? He said to them, 'What you look forward to has already come, but you do not recognize it. His disciples said to him, 'When will the Kingdom come?' Jesus said, 'It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying 'Here it is' or 'There it is.' Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it.' ~Ibid 42.7-51.18

'If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.' ~Ibid 45.40-33


Just looking for fellowship with Gnostics or those interested in Gnostic Christianity, not attacks from other denominations; but I will gladly answer any questions.

[Niniel]

I am not a Gnostic, but when I read something about Gnosticism I noticed some similarities with Tolkien's works. Have you noticed any too? Does anybody know if Tolkien knew a lot about Gnosticism?

[Athelas]

I noticed some stiking similarities when I read the Ecclesia Gnostica:

There is an original and transcendental spiritual unity (Eru) which came to emanate a vast manifestation of pluralities.

The manifest universe of matter and mind was not Created by the original spiritual unity but by spiritual beings possessing inferior powers. (Valar)

These creators (Melkor)possessing inferior powers have as one of their objectives the perpetual separation of humans from the unity (Eru).

The human being is a composite, the outer aspect being the handiwork of the inferior creators, while the "inner man" has the character of a fallen spark of the ultimate divine unity.

The fallen sparks of transcendental holiness slumber in their material and mental prison, their self-awareness stupefied by forces of materiality and mind.

The slumbering sparks have not been abandoned by the ultimate unity, rather there is a constant effort forthcoming from this unity that is directed toward their awakening and liberation. (Intervention of the good Valar and Maiar)

The awakening of the inmost divine essence in humans is effected by salvific knowledge, called Gnosis.

Salvific knowledge, or Gnosis, is not brought about by belief, or the performance of virtuous deeds, or by obedience to commandments, for these can at best but serve as preparatory circumstances leading toward liberating knowledge.

Among the helpers of the slumbering sparks a particular position of honor and importance belongs to a feminine emanation of the unity. The name of this emanation is Sophia (Wisdom). She was involved in the creation of the world and ever since remained the guide of her orphaned human children.

From the earliest times of history, messengers of light have been sent forth from the ultimate unity. The task of these messengers has ever been the advancement of Gnosis in the souls of humans.

The greatest of these messengers in our historical and geographical matrix was the descended Logos of God, manifesting in Jesus Christ.

Jesus exercised a twofold ministry: He was a teacher, imparting instruction concerning the way of Gnosis, and he was a hierophant, imparting mysteries.

The mysteries imparted by Jesus (which are also known as sacraments) are mighty aids toward Gnosis and have been entrusted by him to his apostles and to their successors.

By way of the spiritual practice of the mysteries (sacraments) and by a relentless and uncompromising striving for Gnosis, humans can steadily advance toward liberation from all confinement, material and otherwise.

The ultimate objective of this process of liberation is the achievement of salvific knowledge and with it freedom from embodied existence and return to the ultimate unity.

[Niniel]

Wow,l I hadn't thought of it in that much detail, but you're right about most things. But do you think Tolkien actually knew Gnostiscism? I haven't read anything in the Letters about it, but it's too much to be a coincidence.

[Athelas]

I never imagined that Tolkien explored Gnosticism. His approach to Christianity was through Catholocism, which considers it heresy. But he does strike me as a man who always sought for deeper meanings than the masses would be content with, so he very well may have studied it.

You could say that many modern Christians are trying to get to Valinor, while Gnostics would be aiming for Union with Eru.

[Maeglin]

Call me an ignorant Christian if you want....but what is Gnosticism? I've never heard of it before.:confused:

[Athelas]

Welcome Glorfindel. The Ecclesia Gnostica (above) is a pretty good summary. Elaine Pagels "The Gnostic Gospels" is a good introduction.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Athelas
You could say that many modern Christians are trying to get to Valinor, while Gnostics would be aiming for Union with Eru.

Following your analogy, would you say that Valinor is evil? I noticed that in your summary of Gnosticism you say that the Valar(the creators) have "as one of their objectives the perpetual separation of humans from the unity". That sounds bad.

Glorfindel, the main aspect of Gnosticism is salvation by knowledge. Gnosis = knowledge. It was more common in the first centuries of the Church. As Athelas said, it is considered heretic by all forms of Christianity (not only Catholicism) because of the denial of the goodness of creation/matter and of the denial of the concept of sin. Also, it denies that Jesus was fully human -- it states that he "took on the appearance of a human", being a higher being. This is related to the Gnostic belief of the wickedness of matter; God could not incarnate himself in such a world view.

Gnosticism actually predates Christianity by some centuries, but it embraced Christian symbols very quickly.

I don't think much of the similarities between Tolkien and Gnosticism -- I believe the differences are much more marked. But that's me. In Tolkien's world, matter was created good (and only later tainted by Melkor); and the Fall of Men was a matter of the Will, not of the Intellect (i.e., not a result of lack of knowledge; in fact, Men were in direct communion with Eru, listening to His Voice quite often, at the time of the Fall -- when they chose to worship Melkor).

I think these differences are of great importance, for they stand at the root of the gnostic worldview. A "Gnostic Tolkienism" would state that Melkor created the world, not Eru; and that Melkor shaped the world, not the Valar. And that Men fell because they were locked in material, inherently wicked prisons; not because of their free choice in worshipping Melkor.

[Athelas]

>I noticed that in your summary of Gnosticism you say that the Valar(the creators) have "as one of their objectives the perpetual separation of humans from the unity". That sounds bad.<

No. Only Melkor would represent the secondary creators trying to keep man from the Prime Divinity. The good Valar and Maiar would not, being that they still serve the Prime Creator (Eru) which is why trying to see a Gnostic influence on Tolkien is interesting, but kind of a stretch. (Sorry Niniel.)

As I said, I never imagined Tolkien explored Gnosticism. We all know Tolkien despised allegory anyway, so I think we all agree on this one.

Now,

1>because of the denial of the goodness of creation/matter<

Never heard this before. Elaborate?

2>Also, it denies that Jesus was fully human -- it states that he "took on the appearance of a human", being a higher being.<

Jesus was as real and human as you and I.

3>the Gnostic belief of the wickedness of matter; God could not incarnate himself in such a world view.<

The Gnostic views I am discussing are all in my first two posts. I have never heard these last three bits and have no interest in debating them.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Athelas
The fallen sparks of transcendental holiness slumber in their material and mental prison, their self-awareness stupefied by forces of materiality and mind.

Sounds as if the forces of materiality and mind are stupefying, i.e., bad. Especially since knowledge = good.

Anyway, there is no all-embracing definition of Gnosticism. There are many kinds. I'm sure that you agree with that. Gnostic Christianity -- the thing that was considered a heresy in the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D. -- included all of those attributes I mentioned. The Gnosticism of Ecclesia Gnostica may be different, but if it is, it is a recent development.

I think the only thing linking all kinds of Gnosticism is the idea that salvation is achieved by knowledge, not by Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross, or by our acceptance of it.

EDIT: This is no big deal. I just wanted to make it clearer to Glorfindel what Gnosticism is... it is not a very clear subject ;).

[Athelas]

Originally posted by Athelas
The fallen sparks of transcendental holiness slumber in their material and mental prison, their self-awareness stupefied by forces of materiality and mind.

This refers to the higher consciousness that is occulted by the illusions and seductions of the material world and by preconceptions and prejudices of the ego. By removing these obstacles through prayer and meditation, by seeing through the illusion of the material world and the ego, we re-unite with this higher consciousness. The world is not seen as evil. Materialism is simply seen as ignorace of the truth. But before that occurs, the transcendental spark is still asleep seduced by the lure of experience in the material world, and by the vanity of intellect.

[Niniel]

There's just one other thing I noticed: Tolkien at first called the Noldor Gnomes, the wise Elves, and of course this word is derived from the same Greek word (gnosis) as gnosticism.

[HLGStrider]

That's an incredible stretch, Niniel. :D ;)

[Elendil3119]

Originally posted by Niniel
There's just one other thing I noticed: Tolkien at first called the Noldor Gnomes, the wise Elves, and of course this word is derived from the same Greek word (gnosis) as gnosticism.
"gnosis" simply means "knowledge", so it's understandable that he would call the wise and knowledgable elves Gnomes. ;)

[Ciryaher]

Well considering the term "gnome" is very old, it's not a word Tolkien created...

[Niniel]

I was trying to suggest that, since Tolkien was a very religious man, he might have connected the name Gnome to gnosticism, and that if he didn't want other people to make the same association, he might have chosen another name. But maybe it had nothing to do with gnosticism at all.

[HLGStrider]

Actually, I find it likely he didn't know about the sect at all. I didn't until I ran into Athelas, here, and I could be considered very religious (though Tolkien was albiet much more studied and older than I am).

[Snaga]

I'd be pretty surprised if Tolkien knew nothing about gnosticism. As a highly educated man, with more than a passing interest in history and religion, I think you can be assured he had an awareness of it. (If you still havent heard of it when you are a professor, Elgee, I will reconsider my opinion!:p)

However I can see little evidence of any influence on his writing, or on the mythos of Middle-Earth. His influences were predominantly pre-Christian and Nordic at the outset, and a more striking Christian influence later on as he got more concerned with the underlying philosophy of the universe he had created. The Gnome/Gnosis connection is linguistic, but the Noldors knowledge was of lore and craft, and not of the designs of Eru... famously so.

The various gnostic cults that have sprung up throughout the two millenia since the time of Christ show an interesting appetite to reinterpret his teachings outside the straitjacket of 'accepted' Christian thought, and in what you could describe as a more 'Eastern' style. The instinct of some Christians to denounce as heresy the ideas of others before they have listened for the truth they contain is depressing. At least in this century, these ideas won't cost you your life!

[Ciryaher]

But one can still lose their reputation for expressing ideas "outside the norm", where "norm" is the narrow, middle-class "christian" perspective.

[Athelas]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
But one can still lose their reputation for expressing ideas "outside the norm", where "norm" is the narrow, middle-class "christian" perspective.

Yes, you can still be charged with Thoughtcrime.

[HLGStrider]

Just because something challanges the norm doesn't make it true.

The norm may be the norm for a good reason.

Anyway, I personally believe the early church was right in rejecting the Gospel of Thomas. It directly contradicts the other gospels, so it would be one against all the others.

[Athelas]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
Just because something challanges the norm doesn't make it true.

Isn't that what they said about Martin Luther?

Anyway, I personally believe the early church was right in rejecting the Gospel of Thomas. It directly contradicts the other gospels, so it would be one against all the others.

And as we know, if a majority of people believe something, that makes it true.

Was the early church also right in killing those they branded as heretics? I don't think I'd have much faith in a group that uses mass murder to enforce their version of religion; that was so insecure that they tried to silence all dissent through executions. There's too much innocent blood on those hands. God knows what was really in their hearts.

[HLGStrider]

Isn't that what they said about Martin Luther?

Martin Luther believed the church was surpressing the truth in the Bible. If you want to defend Luther, defend the Bible, because that is what he was defending. The Gospel of Thomas contradicts the Bible.

And as we know, if a majority of people believe something, that makes it true.

No, but when you have several trustworthy sorces that say one thing and another sorce springs up contradicting them, it had better be a heck of a good source.

I don't think the GoT is. . .at least it is no more trustworthy than the Gospel of John, that of Luke, that of Mark, etc. . .So we have several witnesses against one.

If three people said that John got on the train and went to Pittsburg, you'd probably believe them over the one guy who said he saw him going by bus. . .Unless you had reasons to believe the three were liars. . .or you had some other information to back up the Bus Theory.

As the Gospels are MAINLY what we have of Jesus early history, it's hard to argue without them.

Was the early church also right in killing those they branded as heretics?

No. According to the Bible they were wrong. Thou Shalt Not Kill. Love thy neighbor. Etc.

I don't think I'd have much faith in a group that uses mass murder to enforce their version of religion

This is a logical falacy. . .It's called the genetic fallacy. I can't believe an arguement because it comes from a certain group. . .

And as I've said before, every religion has do-gooders and do-badders.

Could you believe the religion of Mother Theresa? Bonhoffer? Numerous other good Christians?

that was so insecure that they tried to silence all dissent through executions.

They aren't the only religion that has done so. Most have at one point or another.

There's too much innocent blood on those hands

Hands that happened over a thousand years after the Bible was written so don't have much to do with our arguement. Our arguement is whether the GoT is a trustworthy source.

[Athelas]

http://reluctant-messenger.com/gospel-of-thomas.htm

This is a link to several translantions of the Gospel of Thomas. If you have something to point out from the text, it would be more persuasive than simply saying "'taint so."

> If three people said that John got on the train and went to Pittsburg, you'd probably believe them over the one guy who said he saw him going by bus. . .Unless you had reasons to believe the three were liars. . .or you had some other information to back up the Bus Theory<

Unless the one guy who said he saw him going by bus was Jesus, and you know and trust him; the other three guys may have been working for the Train Company, and they have their own agenda for concealing the truth.;)

[HLGStrider]

Unless the one guy who said he saw him going by bus was Jesus, and you know and trust him; the other three guys may have been working for the Train Company, and they have their own agenda for concealing the truth

which is why I said, Unless you had reasons to believe the three were liars.

I didn't see you give one.
I know a few of the contradictions.

I do mean to read this, of course. I haven't read the apothryca, either. . .I mean to read that someday. . .and the Q'oran. ..one must keep up on the competition. I don't plan to debate theology with any Muslims until I have read the Q'oran. I'm only debating this with you because it has been brought up. . .but I think I can debate half the issue before I read it. . .the half about mine being trustworthy.

I'm going to only read one translation. . .I hope most of them are similar. Most Bible Translations are.

[Athelas]

So you've never read Thomas, yet you dismiss it out of hand. Why am I not surprised.:rolleyes:

>Just looking for fellowship with Gnostics or those interested in Gnostic Christianity, not attacks from other denominations; but I will gladly answer any questions.<

To repeat from my original post. If you want to start a thread discussing YOUR scriptures, do it somewhere else. I shouldn't have to put up with this:

[HLGStrider]

Brother, Athelas. .

Brother, brother, brother. . .:rolleyes:

Anyway, I knew about the GoT from reading a book about how they chose the Bible books and why they didn't choose some. I read some very good reasons why it was rejected. This is actually the first copy of it I've seen.

And I didn't bring up the subject, really.

I was Snaga who said the reason the Gospel was rejected was the unwillingness to accept other views by Christians. I said, there were other reasons. You said, not good ones. . .the debate started. I think Snaga really started it. Would you have had me just ignore that? Then this really isn't a guild of religion. It's a guild of making statements.

We all put up with things.

[Snaga]

Actually I didnt say that Elgee, and I'd be somewhat more careful in how I put an opinion of that sort.

It seems to me that the Bible is frequently contradictory and inconsistent, and an argument which says 'Thomas should be out because its is at odds with the other Gospels' should be treated with some caution. Matthew, Mark and Luke are fairly similar, but John is very different in character.

Personally I don't know what parts of Thomas would be in conflict with the other gospels. I'm also damn sure you don't either. You've never read Thomas, and you never even heard of Gnosticism until this thread got posted, so you posing as an authoritative defender of the true faith is amusing really.

From what I have gathered, the New Testament wasnt a 'stable' text until a couple centuries after the time of Christ, and what should be considered 'authoritative' was a subject of debate and conflict. As I understand it, the transformation of Christianity from a radical people's religion of liberation to a establishment doctrine of the Roman Empire coincides toa great extent with the forming of 'correct' version of the Bible (ie the rejection of Thomas). Make of that what you will, but I'm inclined to feel that Christianity lost its way when it became a tool of the powerful, rather than an inspiration for the powerless.

[Ciryaher]

*raises fist into air*

Word to my Anglo homie.

;)

[HLGStrider]

I read it last night, actually, Snags. I could point out the contradictions, if you'd like.

There are actually very few contradictions between the gospels. They are very stable.

I've heard people say the Bible is inconsistant. I've never noticed this and I've read most parts of it three times (I don't read the Old Testament prophets very often. That's probably twice at the most). I know there is a line between Grace and Law in the Bible. A point between adultry being a capital crime and "He without sin throw the first stone" but that is because of what Christ did (the new covenent and the old).

You've never read Thomas, and you never even heard of Gnosticism until this thread got posted, so you posing as an authoritative defender of the true faith is amusing really.

I didn't say that. I said I hadn't heard about Gnosticism until Athelas. I've tangled with him on other threads. I had heard of the GoT before that and read a bit on why it was not accepted. I didn't know it was a Gnostic thing. . .what I said was that the church leaders had decent reasons for questioning and rejecting it, which they did.

Would you like me to find that section of that book? It also seems to reject your history brief there a bit. The gospels were chosen based on whether they were A. Written by who they were written by. B. Whether they agreed with Christs teachings.

Yes, John was the last of the Gospels to be written by about twenty years and John protrays a much more intimate Jesus, more theology than history. ..however, there is no direct contradiction in theology. . .

[Snaga]

Yes, pleased point out the contradictions Elgee because then we have something substantive to discuss.:)

Right now you are asserting that Thomas was rejected because it 'contradicted the teachings of Christ'. I am no expert, but neither are you so I'm not going to take your word for it. I am more inclined to believe that Thomas was rejected because it was in contradiction with the interpretation of the teachings of Christ that the some church leaders wanted to assert. And I am further inclined to believe that the reason that one set of interpretations are now accepted, and the gnostic interpretation is not, has more to do with a political struggle between rival factions in the early church than it has to do with what Christ actually said.

But as I said, I am not an expert so I'm very happy to listen to what you have found from reading GoT.:) Did you enjoy it? Did you find it inspiring?

[Dr. Ransom]

This is a discussion I would like to join as much as possible. I don't have a ton of time to research, but I've already studied at least the basics of gnosticism.

I am supprised that you've never heard of gnosticism though Elgee, it nearly took over Christianity in many parts of the world in the first few centuries AD. In fact, most scholars believe that 1 Corinthians is an attack on a very early form of "christianized" gnosticism. While obviously the belief hadn't developed yet, the cutural propensitites of the Corinthians is strikingly simular.

My personal study on the issue at one point is probably much greater than most (I actually had about a month when we went over gnosticsism) but obviously still far less than Eriol. Athelas, while you seem to know tons about some sort of modern gnosticism, but what Eriol said is exactly what I've been taught about the gnostic movement. So apparently there is some differences between the old and new (not suprising really). I think this would be interesting to explore as well. As for the gospel of Thomas, I have not read it cover to cover. I have been looking for an electronic copy though, so thanks for the link. I really don't remember much about what we discussed about the book, except that I think it was rejected at the council of Carthage as cannonical for several reasons. And Cir, I know of no political reasons for its rejection. Gnosticism tendencies were all the rage of the day, hardly the pursecution mentioned in this thread. In fact, I have never heard of a single case of the early church pursecuting Gnostics. While I'm sure such things happend, political power and authority in the church alluded to by Athelas and Cir didn't exist at all until Constantine the Great.

This is just all shooting from the hip guys... Let me know of any mistakes, or any good sources for that matter.

-Ransom

[Ciryaher]

I wasn't referring to the pre Church era, mainly their effect on other "heretic" sects once the Church was established.

And I'm curious as to how many books were not accepted into the Bible. My philosophy teacher mentioned three, but I only caught the name of Thomas. What are the others?

[Athelas]

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html

[HLGStrider]

Did you enjoy it? Did you find it inspiring?

Not really. I'm afraid I laughed at one or two parts because there just has to be a better way to translate: Anyone here with two good ears had better listen!

The way that is translated sounds like a mob boss heavy. I don't know if I chose a bad translation or what (I did the scholars one because the title sounded most promising).

However, the whole thing felt disjointed and it didn't call to mind any of the other gospels. ..least of all John which is what I hear it is normally contrasted with. Is this a complete text or are we dealing with a document that has a lot of damage due to age? That might explain the disjointed bit.

I think it is statements like this: Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits.

That would've thrown a lot of early Christians away from the movement. Fasting and praying and giving to charity were all glorified by Jesus (though fasting was not to begin until after he left them). Jesus himself gave to the poor and they all prayed. I don't know if this statement has some sort of reverse meaning. . .shrug.

Statements like this:
If you do not fast from the world, you will not find the kingdom. If you do not observe the sabbath as a sabbath you will not see the Father."

Are probably what Eriol is basing his assertations that Gnosticism is generally of the opinion that matter is evil. That's my first impression with reading it too. ..and my second and third for that matter.

and this: Jesus said, "Whoever does not hate father and mother cannot be my disciple, and whoever does not hate brothers and sisters, and carry the cross as I do, will not be worthy of me."

I don't think Jesus ever validated hating in general. . .but he never ordered dishonoring parents, though he did state that he would turn parents against children (meaning that when a Jewish parent found a child was now a Christian they might disown him).

other places it says ALMOST what the gospels do and then changes one or two important words: Jesus said, "[Foxes have] their dens and birds have their nests, but human beings have no place to lay down and rest."

The statement was the Son of Man, which is a direct referal to Christ, where it appears in other bibles.

There are more, but that's enough for now.

Anyway, I know there was a Gospel of Mary that was rejected based on the fact no one believed it had actually been written by Mary, and I can't remember the other name.

[Niniel]

Here are more Gnostic sources:
www.gnosis.org/library.html

A good book about gnosticism (among other things) is: A world full of gods, by Keith Hopkins.

[Athelas]

I think that if you understand Zen Buddhism, you will have an intuitive understanding of Gnostic Christianity; if you don't, it will make little sense.

Thunder, Perfect Mind has always held a Gnostic flavor to me.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/thunder.html

This epitaph has much the same theme.

"I am the great Sun, but you do not see me.
I am your Husband, but you turn away.
I am the Captive, but you do not free me.
I am the Captain you will not obey.
I am the Truth, but you will not believe me.
I am the City, where you will not stay.
I am your Wife, your Child, but you will leave me.
I am that God, to whom you will not pray.
I am your Counsel, but you do not hear me.
I am the Lover, whom you will betray.
I am the Victor, but you do not cheer me.
I am the Holy Dove, whom you will slay.
I am your Life, but you will not name me.
Seal up your soul with tears and never blame me."

Charles Cosley, Norman Crucifix, 1632.

[Snaga]

Thank you all. Much for me to read and consider... when I have digested all of this I'll post again.

I also have a book to read: R. Weis, 2000. The Yellow Cross. The Story of the Last Cathars 1290-1329 This is the tale of another 'heretical' sect, which may or may not have some connection with Gnosticism. I once saw a TV documentary that bracketed them together.

Anyway... I am wary of dogmatic assertion with recourse to knowledge, so no more for now!:)