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.
Pagan Fluffy Rehabilitation Center
Educational, Respectful and Responsible Paganism. Don't worry, we'll teach you how.
![]() |
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
//
//
//
//
//
Have an account? Login Now!
