|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:29 pm
This my guide to developing a framework for a Christian Gnostic tradition.
First things first, considering that there are many many definitions on what Gnosticism is, I will provide what I am calling Christian Gnosticism.
Christian Gnosticism is a heretical tradition of mysticism with three key element, that the emulation of Christ is central and primary form of worship, that there is a distinction between God and creator, and that a particular gnosis is central and key to salvation.
First off to answer some questions.
Why is there a distinction between God and creator, isn't God the creator.
In the Gnostic belief system no. In the mythos, the creator is a being that was flawed from his birth. He fell into an area that eventually became the material cosmos. Part of his flaw is that he is made of a different substance than God, thus not an emanation. While a divine being in his own right and hhe could be considered a god, he is not considered God in Gnostic mythos since he does not qualify as an emanation.
Where did this creator come from?
To explain that I will have to touch upon the concept of emanations. An emanation is something that comes forth from something else. From God various polarities emanated. These polarities emanated other polarities as they sought to know God for themselves. Eventually one aspect of one of the polarities tried to know God without her consort. The result was a being called Yaldaboth, the Demiurge (the creator).
What is gnosis?
Gnosis is an experiential understanding of some form of divinity. For Christian Gnostics this gnosis is a particular gnosis that is key to one's salvation.
What is one being saved from?
The belief in the Gnostic systems is that all of humanity are children of God and our core is seed of God via Sophia's emanation. According to the gnostic mythos, to make humanity, the creator(s) modeled our bodies and mind after an aspect of God and used Sophia to bring humanity to life. We are part of the creator(s), systems and either directly or indirectly keep his system going. Salvation is freedom from that system so one doesn't have to serve that system nor stay in it.
Does this gnosis guarantee salvation?
The gnostic writings seem to think so but personally I have my doubts. I think gnosis is a key to salvation and a starting point but I personally believe it is arrogant and quite limiting to see gnosis in and of itself as salvation.
So creation is evil?
No Creation is not evil it is indifferent. Though many of the Gnostic texts speak very negatively about creation this is more of a result of noticing how uncaring and indifferent nature given common it was to personify nature.
Then the Creator is evil?
No the creator is not evil, just imperfect. To label the creator as evil is to say that anything imperfect is evil, which would make anybody including one's self evil.
Is the YHVH the creator?
I don't know. It's possible that he is but I have my doubts. While the mythos of the Demiurge does seem to correlate with creation mythos of YHVH, I do not believe that mythos is describing YHVH as the Demiurge but rather used the creation mythos of YHVH to explain what this Demiurge is within the various Gnostic systems.
Isn't this polytheism?
No it is henotheism. The emanations are of the same substance as God and are in essence different understandings of God. The Demiurge and the other divine beings that came from Sophia are not objects of worship in the Gnostic context. Given how worship is defined in this Gnostic framework as emulation of the Christ spirit it would appear that the worship of other deities would technically not contradict the system fitting under the "giving what is unto what is Caesar's what is Caesar's and unto God's what is God's". It depends on if other gods are false to you or not. If you have evidence or reason to believe that they exist, then they are not false gods. It also depends on if what your gods expect of you contradicts what the Christ indwelling expects, i.e. not serving two masters.
What happens to those that don't receive gnosis and salvation?
Different text say different things but the only thing that appears to be consistent is that one is trapped in the material universe. Different Gnostics are going to have different and diverse opinions on it though. One of the popular ideas is that one would reincarnate until one received gnosis. Another idea is that one goes to a particular material metaphysical realm/afterlife depending on various circumstances. A less popular idea is that one just stops existing after death without gnosis. The short and sweet is that no one knows seems to exactly know and for some these other possible outcomes are desired as opposed to where Gnostics want to go.
How does one gain the gnosis that the Gnostics were looking for?
There's various ideas and methods out there but how one receives gnosis is personal. For me, it was letting go of my assumptions who I thought God, Jesus, Christ, etc, were and to seek out who/what they were for myself. Since Gnosticism is generally an orthodox religion there is a “right thought” or rather a right way of thinking that one has to be in order to receive it. What that orthodoxy is exactly I do believe that is a personal orthodoxy (I could be wrong on this) relating to how one expresses the Law of Agape but whatever this orthodoxy is, it should help one come to understanding of one's self and core and by extension God.
What is the Law of Agape?
This is a central concept to Christianity. Agape is a Greek word literally translated as “love” but focusing one the affection aspect associated concerning love. Christians are asked to love God, your neighbor, your enemy, and yourself. This is accomplished through the emulation of Christ.
So how does Christ play into all of this?
Christ is where Gnosis comes from. Christ is an emanation from God sent to correct the error of Sophia and bring those seeds back to God.
Is Yeshua the Christ?
Yes in that Christ dwells in all the seeds of God and that the Christ spirit can take many forms. Now if the historic individual was literally the Christ spirit, I don't know and the history being literal is largely irrelevant to Gnosticism
Then why is Yeshua important?
If he did exist, then he was the first person to show people how to see God for themselves.
So what about the Bible? Doesn't Gnosticism go against the Bible?
What should be known about the Bible is that it is a collection of texts used to support a particular theology. The first official Bible was compiled by St. Jerome around 382(?) CE. Protestant, Mormon, and Jehovah Witness Bibles are all based on this canon. In the early days of Christianity there was no standard canon. The need for a standardized universal canon arose with the emergence of Marcion's theology of Christianity. To counter his theology and other opposing theologies, texts were included, excluded, or manufactured into what became the official canon. The canon I personally work with in my Gnostic system is the texts of the New Testament excluding 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus and the texts of the Nag Hammadi Library. The reason for excluding 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus is that these texts did not appear the need to counter Marcionism arose which makes it's claimed origin to Paul questionable. Also these texts seem to be focused on how to run the Church than covering anything spiritually significant.
Paul? Isn't he an enemy to the Gnostics and is anti-Gnostic?
This seems to be a common rallying cry among Gnostics and certain sects of Christians in order to disassociate themselves from one another, but it's unclear what his views concerning Gnosticism were. It should be noted though historic Gnostic sects he was highly regarded. Many of his texts were used by the Valentinians. Personally I see him as important to Christian Gnosticism since he opened Christianity to the Gentiles by making Christianity work outside a Jewish context. Whether this is a good or bad thing, I leave that for the seeker to figure out for themselves.
I saw on some youtube video about the original apostles being Gnostics. Is that true?
I don't know and it's difficult to say. The term Gnostic originated as a slur used by St. Ireaneus in the 2nd Century CE to sweepingly mock various sects of Christians he didn't agree with. The evidence for this is that he would often refer to these Christians as "so called Gnostics" rather than just Gnostics. The groups he labeled as Gnostics really had very little in common with each other. The other issue with saying that the original apostles were Gnostics is the dating of Gnostic literature. The earliest "Gnostic" writing is possibly the Gospel of Thomas but it's unclear on if it was written around 40 CE, making it a contemporary document, or written around 140 CE, making the claim of the original apostles being Gnostics false.
What about the Gnostic persecution by the Catholic Church?
There is no evidence supporting that there ever was a mass persecution of Gnostics. They were trashed talked yes but there are no documents from the Church or Roman records endorsing any attacks specifically on the Gnostics. Now there was one attack on a group of Valentinians but it was a result of them being at the wrong place, at the wrong time, not because they were Gnostics.
Wasn't the Nicene Creed designed to weed out the Gnostics.
No. Gnosticism was not an issue at the Council of Nicene. The purpose of the Nicene Creed was being inclusive though it was specifically designed to excluded one sect, the Arians. Many strains of Gnosticism had died out and those that did exist were workable within the structure of the Nicene Creed. To demonstrate, Valentinianism continued on well until the end of the 5th century teaching along and within the Catholic Church.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:30 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:31 pm
Reading Gnostic Scripture in C CLApS style1. Scripture is consistent. There are two concepts that should be core to a Christian Gnostic system, to know yourself and the Law of Agape (to love God, your neighbors, your enemies, and yourself). Accepted scripture is considered to be consistent with this. Interpretations need to be consistent with this as well. 2. Scripture has context. Each scripture was written by someone coming from a specific time, specific area, and had an intended audience in mind. When reading take the role of the intended audience and get into their frame of mind. What may not make sense to us in our time and location, was clear to those living in that time and location. 3. Scripture is layered. There are multiple correct interpretations due to scripture "speaking" to us on different levels of thinking. These levels build and complement each other. 4. Scripture is always personal. Whatever lessons you learn are meant for you. Apply caution before saying that those lessons apply to others. 5. Scripture is symbolic. Many objects, actions, numbers, people, etc... are symbols explaining something deeper that cannot be put in words completely. If a literal interpretation is not making sense, look at these things as symbols and see if the meaning becomes clearer. Examples: Historic example that partially inspired this method Fragments of Heracleon's commentarySample commentaries using this method Here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:31 pm
Terminology
Taken from Alpha and Omega, the forum that I moderate for. Quote: Now I am no expert so I may be wrong on these definitions. If anyone would like to correct me on this definitions or add on feel welcome to. I write these definitions down because we use a lot of Christian terminology that may be unclear or completely new to new seekers or even people that have been practicing Christianity their entire lives. I want to help those that would like to be part of our community and what better way than to help people know what the hell we are talking about. lol. Sin - English word that is a common translation of two words, a Hebrew word, "het", which means "to err" (no implications of moral evil) and a Greek archery term that literally means "missing the mark". It refers to a state of being that is away from God and actions that are contrary to agape and draw us away from God. Different denominations have different interpretations of what actions constitute sin, but all Christians can agree that one of the essences of God that is universally recognized is Agape, thus any actions that is in violation of Agape will draw us away from God. Original Sin - The state of being that we all start at as being separated from God. Both mainstream Christians and particular Christian Gnostic sects agree that this state exists and it is not something that is inherently wrong with the person, it's just assumed to be a fact of life. It's an explanation for why we are not connected with God, and specifically in the gnostic tradition why we are ignorant of God being within us. It's nothing more. The exact cause of Original Sin is debatable between Christian Gnostics and mainline Christians because of the acceptance of differing creation stories. In various Christian denominations, it is believed that the sacrament of Baptism is required to remove this state from our core, others believe that the acceptance of Jesus through is sufficient to remove it. I personally believe that once you recognize that God is within you, then Original Sin has been removed. Total Depravity/Arminianism - Derived from St. Augustine writings about Original Sin, but it takes Original Sin one step further. It sums up to meaning that Original Sin was so devastating on the human condition that we are incapable on our own to receive salvation and an outside Divine force must intervene on our behalf before we can receive the gift of salvation. Most Protestant denominations such as the Methodist, Calvanist, and Lutherans subscribe to this doctrine. I personally do not because of very negative and destructive implications that can be extrapolated from this doctrine about one's self and others. Agape - Literally translates to "love" but it is not romantic love or the love that friends share for each other. It is the love that siblings or family members share for each other, also refers to the concept of unconditional love that a parent has for their children. A compassion that is given that expects nothing in return. When Christ talks about loving your neighbor as yourself or love the lord your God, this is the love that he is referring to. I will use this word quite frequently when talking about God rather than love because the closest equivalent in English is unconditional love but even that doesn't truly encompass the meaning of agape also razz I'm lazy and if I can type a 5 lettered word to convey a better idea than an 17 letter, two word equivalent then I'm going to do it. Gnosis - Literally means "to know on an experiential level". Basically you know because you have experienced it. In most of Christianity, save the Eastern Orthodox, it has unfortunately become a "dirty word", but it is central to being able to talk of God rather than about God. In Christian theology it is describes the knowledge of knowing God on a personal level. Any group that talks about developing a relationship with Christ, being filled with the Holy Spirit, Seeing the Light,... is essentially talking about this kind of knowledge. Any religious group that requires this knowledge for salvation, is gnostic in it's nature, since mainstream Christian theology does not require this for salvation. I believe (and know, but that is on an experiential level and I cannot provide empirical evidence of this, so to avoid disagreement I say believe) that gnosis is freely available to all who seek it. I do not think I am anymore special than anyone else because I know my God, and I recognize that we are all children of God, meaning when I communicate with you, I am also communicating with God. Faith - It is a form of trust. It does not imply blindly believing and denying empirical objective reality but trusting an answer is there based on and reinforced by an understanding of empirical objective reality. In the Christianity, it is a trust that following a life like Jesus lived, a life of Agape, will lead to us to knowing God and/or salvation form the sin. Salvation - Being assured a place in the Kingdom of Heaven and overcoming the separation of sin. Various Christian denominations will have different answers on this issue. Some say it is by God's grace, some by accepting Christ in your life and having faith in him, and others say gnosis is required. It is not my place to speak on that which I do not know or only know an inkling about. Holy Spirit - Many people get confused by this term because it is only briefly talked about in the Bible. The Holy Spirit can best be described as a person or mask (differences depend if your a trinitarian, modalist, or believe in emanations) of God that speaks through those that are talking of God. The Holy Spirit is not limited to Christianity but talks through anyone that lives and promotes a life of Agape, one of the essences I recognize as being of my God. It is the Holy Spirit that leads us to Christ. Trinitarian - One who believes that God is three persons The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each aspect is a unique individual but all the individuals are each God and together as God. The old adage of a shamrock is the classic description, each person is a leaf but all the leafs are a shamrock. Modalism - The theological doctrine that all three persons of God are one in the same. Thus the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit are the same person and God. This is one of the Non-trinitarian views. Emanations - The concept that there are beings that are God, Aeons, that are begotten from God, since they are begotten they are aspects of God but they each Aeon is an individual and Aeons can begot other Aeons thus creating other aspects of God. Kinda like the trinity but not limited to 3 persons. Forgiveness - The guaranty that we can have peace of mind if we sin. We're human, since we believe(or for some of us know) that God is Agape, we're going to screw up along the way. This does not mean a permissiveness to continue violating Agape but that just because we screw up doesn't mean that we cannot pick ourselves up along the way. It is an encouragement to continue following and living a life of Agape and the it would be best to share agape by taking responsibility for our mistakes and trying to correct it the best we humanly can, i.e. love your neighbor as yourself. Orthodoxy - Literally meaning "right thought." Orthodoxy is very critical to understanding and following Agape because without the right frame of thinking, we will not be able to recognize for ourselves when we are committing sins. Different traditions of Christianity have their opinions about what is orthodox, but it is all for the reason stated previously. This particular Church has an orthodoxy in our creed but we do not require our members to adhere strictly to it due to our varying understandings of God but it is to declare our collective and official stance of what we believe to be orthodox as Christian Gnostics. Heresy - Literally meaning "choose." Heresy is thoughts that deviate from what is considered Orthodox about Christianity according apostolic traditions of Christianity or in the Protestant Churches lies about God. A gnostic is a heretic and Gnosticism is considered a major heresy in mainstream churches due to the fact that we use text that are not part of Cannon, what historical gnosticism believes to be required for salvation, accused of not following the same God as the mainstream churches. I would say that both definitions of heresy are accurate even from a Gnostic perspective. It is thoughts that make us deviate away from God and when we actively promote a way of life that is in violation of Agape. I would stress though that we not focus on this topic too much because it will distract us from our own spiritual journey since it puts us at risk of judging others, which Christ, I believe to be agape incarnate, has asked us not to do. Demiugre - A Greek word literally meaning "craftsman". First conceived in Platonism as the imperfect creator of this world, modeling it after the Heavens the best he could. Not viewed as evil or malevolent but misguided and incapable of truly modeling the heavens, since this being is limited and imperfect. He rules the world, knows that he is not God but keeps us thinking that he is because has some idea about who God is, though he himself is unable to know God. In Gnosticism, he still has the same role but his nature is often viewed as malevolent due to his imperfection and desire to rule and there is scripture to promote this view. Others Gnostic groups see this being as the Platonist and Neo-platonist do and there is scripture to support this view as well. Names he is referred to as include Yaldaboth, Samael, Saklas, YHWH,... the list is long. As we each have God inside of us, we each have Demiugre that is constantly crafting our views and opinions from before we know God and even afterwards. He will create archons to keep him occupied and reinforce the idea that he is in control. Gnosticism is about overcoming the Demiugre and the world he creates through gnosis. Archon - A Greek word literally meaning "Ruler". Archons are created by the Demiurge to reinforce his rule and keep us thinking the Demiugre is God. Archons are anything that keeps us connected to the World and connected to thinking that the Demiugre is God. As Gnostics we become of the various things that rule us and reinforce the Demiugre and we are continuously learning how to overcome them. Not all Archons are evil. Some are necessary for survival (Eating, breathing, sleep, sex... I don't know about you but I could not physically live without food, breathing, sleep and I want to have kids in the future.), those Archons are overcome by accepting that they are there but they don't rule or define who you are (though that is just my opinion on that matter, I'm open to new ideas). Antitheisis - A combination Greek word meaning "against position". In Christianity, there are two subjects that are referred to as such. 1) In Matthew 5, The Sermon on the Mount, there are six statements where he offers a position that is counter (and above) to the Mosaic Law. 2) It refers to a document written by Marcion contrasting the Old Testament (the Tanahk) with the New Testament (Marcion's Bible). I have tried to give as unbiased explanation of these definitions as I can but I know I have probably colored my opinion in there. I will try to explain any terminology that I can and everyone on this board should feel free to help me add on to this list. I'm open to suggestions on editing any of these definitions if they do not ring true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:34 pm
About me
To clear the air some more, I am not a guru, prophet, “Rainbow child”, “Gemstone child”, enlightened individual, god, angel, etc. I am simply a man who loves Christianity, has a fascination with pre-Nicene Christianity, and would love to help others have this wonderful experience I had as well too. I grew up in a small town in southeast Louisiana. I was raised into Christianity, specifically the United Methodists, quite literally. My Dad was (and still is) insistent on making sure that my sister and I went to Church every Sunday. My grandfather was a Methodist minister. I found myself early on coming up with ideas and questions about God, the afterlife, spiritual realms, etc. due to being a very inquisitive child. I was was given some explanations but mostly I was told to read the Bible and pray. For the most part this was sufficient for me until I was 11.
Around that time my Dad had broke his neck when he dove into a 4ft swimming pool trying to show off to my friends and me. After his injury, I began to start questioning the teachings and stances of my childhood religion, like why would God be against witchcraft if it could be used to help someone? Why should I, or anyone, be damned to eternal torment because they are earnest about healing someone who was sick? Why is everything secular or having a pagan origin being labeled as evil or Satan's tool even if it's useful and helpful? I eventually took a theosophic view and made up my own gods and just used Christianity as a cover for my own beliefs. Being a pastor's grandchild made this easy though I did have personal qualms with praying to Jesus but I could say God or Father and I got around it.
After I left for college, what worked in my small town in my Grandfather's church wasn't going to work here. The church had a different atmosphere from my Grandfather's church. Many people here exemplified the negative stereotypes of Christianity I had heard about but never really saw except in a minority of individuals. Needless to say I did not feel comfortable nor spiritually fulfilled going to that Church. Not realizing that different sects have variations in their beliefs and practices and assuming that all Churches were like the one I attended, I ignorantly tried to embrace paganism. I say ignorantly since I had no understanding that there were differences in pagan religions and assuming they were all like “Mama Birdie-White-Dog” and her ilk marketed them.
The Gods of the TVAANist didn't want anything to do with me and assuming again that “All Gods and Goddesses were God and Goddess” left me spiritually frustrated and confused. I then decided that I did not wanting to be a part of pagan religions since I did not fit in and try to go back to the religion I had made up and begin trying to fine-tune it. Eventually I remembered hearing about a text called, “The Gospel of Thomas” from one of my professors. After a quick search on the internet I found it and soon realized that I was not alone. There were early Christians that had similar thoughts and theological opinions as I did. The something missing, of Christianity I thought I had found. For a while I was a pop-gnostic. I believed much of the anti-dogmatic dogma of the Gnostic community and much of the political propaganda they threw into their spiritual marketing rhetoric.
Eventually I fell prey to one of these marketers and nearly got myself sucked into a very manipulative religion. After being made aware of the practices of this group, I soon became very disillusioned and cynical of all religions. Reducing them to proto-psychology at best and nearly becoming a hard atheist. I decided to look at Gnosticism one more time and due to a dear friend of mine, I was made aware that my problem was that I was projecting what I thought God was rather than trying to find out what God is. A week later after some intense self reflection, I had an event occur that solidified me back into Christianity through Gnosticism. I cannot completely recount the experience due to words not being able to convey it properly but I will say that the event was consistent with scripture of the New Testament and the Nag Hammadi Library. It turned out that I wasn't being lied to concerning connecting with God either as a child but the techniques I was being told were incomplete, or rather at a time when I was not mature enough to understand what “read the Bible and pray” meant. While I would love to see more people become Christian Gnostics, my greatest hope is that you get something of worth from this guide even if it's something very small.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:35 pm
Core to Christian Gnosticism The following four (or five) elements I believe should be core to any Christian Gnostic system. While not a creed or defined dogma, these elements should help in providing a foundation to work from in building a Gnostic tradition. These elements are Gnosis, Know Thyself, Christ, the Law of Agape, and possibly Holistic Dualism GNOSIS The central goal in Christian Gnosticism is gaining a specific type of gnosis. This gnosis is direct experience of the God of Yeshua (Jesus). How gains this is not a precise science or at least not yet. What we do know about receiving this gnosis is that is related to one's state of mind. While there are some practices that have shown results we have records of this gnosis occurring those that have never participated in these known-to-work practices and we have individuals that have participated in these rituals that are known-to-work yet see no results. The theory my tradition has relates to our mythos in that we all possess a spark of God within us. The symbolism in these rituals speak to that “spark” thus in a way “awakening” it to where it is. It is quite possible that the symbolism is far from universal thus what will awaken one person may or may not necessarily awaken another due to the symbolism in a given ritual not being understood. This means for the most part rituals while helpful are not the source of gnosis concerning Yeshua's God. So basically if a ritual isn't helping, don't be afraid to try something different by either changing the symbolism in an existing ritual you are familiar with to something you relate to Yeshua's God or doing something that helps you connect with God and makes this being personal to you. KNOW THYSELF Related to gnosis is knowing yourself. If we are made in God's image then understanding who we are should be critical to understanding who God is since we are modeled after him. Also how can God be personal to you if you do not know yourself? This is one of the most attractive parts of Gnosticism but also one of the most detracting at the same time. To know one self is to be completely and brutally honest with one's self about who we are. We can be like the Demiurge and follow in his image by creating our own little universe where we are constantly being glorified and told how special we are or we can take the more difficult route and be ourselves with all our flaws and perfections that make us who we are and work from there. The Demiurge is foolish and asserts he is God and that he has no flaws. Though our bodies and psyche are his creations we have the spark of God within us which grants us the wisdom to admit that we have our personal flaws and we are not alone in the world we live in. CHRIST Another core element is going to be Christ (It is Christian Gnosticism after all). The Christ spirit is our primary link to Yeshua's God. How Yeshua and Christ are related and interact (Christology) is up to the believer. Some take a classic trinitarian stance that Yeshua is Christ, fully man and fully God. Some take a stance that Yeshua was an image of God and that his body was an illusion of sorts. Some take that he was only a prophet being guided by the Christ spirit. Some take that he was a man and worked his way up to divinity. There are many, many more stances but the point is that the teachings are linked to a man called Yeshua and many associated a relation of some kind between Yeshua and the Christ spirit. What that relationship is exactly should be personally examined along with how the authors of your core scriptures viewed this relationship. Often these scriptures this relationship and interaction between Christ and Yeshua is describing some fundamental little observation about ourselves and our own interaction with the God we seek to know personally. It is from the Christ that we get the Law of Agape. THE LAW OF AGAPE The Law of Agape is very simple, Love God, Love your neighbor, Love your enemy, Love yourself. As simple as this law sounds it is very, very difficult to follow. This Law is what is believed to be the call of the Christ spirit. If something claims to be Christ and commands you to go against this then it is not of the Christ spirit, but something else. Now this Law is more like a force of nature rather than a legalistic command. When you receive gnosis and feel the Christ spirit there is a compulsion to follow this force willingly. It is the drive to do what is charitable, compassionate, and altruistic without expectation of any reward. Those that do this are following the Law of Agape and being excellent examples of Christianity regardless of their religious affiliation. Now I'm sure I'm going to offend some with this remark but we should keep in mind that the Gnostic mythos teaches that the seed of God resides in every person. If this seed resides in everyone why should expression of it be limited to those who lay claim to the title of Christian? Is it not written in James 2 that even demons believe Christ is Lord? There is a verse in the Gospel of Philip that Christ will resemble those he is around. Knowing thyself will be critical for identifying when the Christ spirit is present in whatever form he takes. (debatable)DUALISTIC HOLISM(debatable) This is an issue of controversy within the Gnostic community while many Modern Gnostics will tout that Gnosticism is a monistic holism and that all is one and one is all, doing so neglects the concept of emanations and why the Demiurge is not part of the Pleroma, the Fullness of God. The mythos teaches that he, his realms and all of his creations are all disconnected from God. Why would the Demiurge be separated from the fullness if is already in the fullness? Why are we separated from this fullness if we are already part of the fullness? To give some imagery to illustrate this, imagine that a writer creates a world. Now this world is connected to the writer and has pieces of the writer in it but much of this world is purely a fabrication even if it is based on reality. This writer will never be completely in this world, even if this writer imagines himself in this world, the writer has only created an image of the author into this imaginary world. Another analogy, imagine the ocean. The Ocean has water in it. Now all life needs water to live. While both the water in living things and the Ocean contain the same substance, these living things are not the Ocean and the Ocean is certainly not these living things even if these living things live in the Ocean. Finally if a monistic position is held then a seeker must then accept God is in nature. This comes with serious issues since nature is not a being, it is uncaring and rather indifferent to our plights and struggles. While sometimes we receive good fortune from nature we also receive much misfortune in the forms of natural disasters. Considering the realism of evolution, this means that God creates things just to see it die and suffer, that new organisms come into existence purely by chance. If God is in nature then the gnosis of this God would contradict the Law of Agape which is an accepted axiom of who Yeshua's God is. While I'm not going to say that gnosticism cannot be monistic, I want to point out that these issues should be thoroughly addressed rather than blowing it off and defaulting with St. Irenaeus's argument against dualism as many Modern Gnostics ironically do. Wait up. Does this mean Gnostics can't be environmentalists? No. It just means that one shouldn't be idealizing nature and associating it with human traits. If it were a person, it would be uncaring and indifferent, which would not be of the nature of Yeshua's God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:36 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 9:17 am
Cool. Thanks for this. I've been wondering about some of the details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 9:50 am
CalledTheRaven Cool. Thanks for this. I've been wondering about some of the details. Thanks. I've been meaning to put it together for some time now. I hope it's not coming off as a dogma per se but a framework that one could work with if they to put together a Gnostic system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:41 pm
It's not coming off as dogmatic to me. You make it very clear that this is what you believe but you nowhere say that it's the, capital T, Truth or that we all must believe as you do. You also never say that you must believe and do exactly this in order to be a Gnostic Christian. You're doing a good job and giving a nice overview.
And I really just like knowing more about it. I'm all for gathering a greater understanding of paths other than my own. Once again, thanks for this. mrgreen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 11:52 pm
Again it's not a problem and it's a personal joy to do so. I remember when I first started looking into Gnosticism and well there was not much to work from outside of primary texts and the "loudest" author in the market. There's still many "loud" authors out there who will try to use history as a justification for why they do something when there's little to no evidence for their appeal to tradition/history. It's fine if one wants to be innovative but why invent history to justify it? It just causes unnecessary problems later down the road.
To give an example, I know my view regarding the existence other gods or even having a relationship with other gods under special conditions is an innovation but based on my study of scripture, if you aren't working with the Old Testament in one's canon I don't see it as disallowed. Does that mean one has to include this in their Gnostic system? No, it's not essential, like the Gnostic creation mythos, but it was something interesting I noticed worth pointing out. I would be lying though if I tried to justify my innovation by saying, "I'm going to do X, because the ancient Gnostics did X."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:41 pm
Do you mind if I copy this info on another forum (not on Gaia)? I have a friend that's doing some serious spiritual seeking and since her background is in Christianity (Catholocism, Baptist), she wanted to start by looking close to home, so to speak. She's looking into the histories and varied practices of the big three Abrahamic faiths and I thought she might be interested in looking at some of the less mainstream forms of Christianity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 2:23 pm
CalledTheRaven Do you mind if I copy this info on another forum (not on Gaia)? I have a friend that's doing some serious spiritual seeking and since her background is in Christianity (Catholocism, Baptist), she wanted to start by looking close to home, so to speak. She's looking into the histories and varied practices of the big three Abrahamic faiths and I thought she might be interested in looking at some of the less mainstream forms of Christianity. Sure. Feel free to do so. I'm working on a more in depth guide that I'm still conflicted about sharing on Gaia due to the fact that I'd like to get this bigger guide published and kinda feel like it would be wasted on Gaia tbh. I plan to share it Open Source upon request so yeah I'll send you a link to it when I get finished.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 2:25 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 2:26 pm
rmcdra CalledTheRaven Do you mind if I copy this info on another forum (not on Gaia)? I have a friend that's doing some serious spiritual seeking and since her background is in Christianity (Catholocism, Baptist), she wanted to start by looking close to home, so to speak. She's looking into the histories and varied practices of the big three Abrahamic faiths and I thought she might be interested in looking at some of the less mainstream forms of Christianity. Sure. Feel free to do so. I'm working on a more in depth guide that I'm still conflicted about sharing on Gaia due to the fact that I'd like to get this bigger guide published and kinda feel like it would be wasted on Gaia tbh. I plan to share it Open Source upon request so yeah I'll send you a link to it when I get finished. Send your MS to Lewellyn wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
