Gnosticism (Jesus, reject, crucifixion, virtual, Buddhism)

[michel]

I read a thread by a gnostic, and looked up the web page referred to, as an overview. I then looked at a couple of other pages on Gnosticism, and found that virtually each page on the subject was contradictory.

One page implied a strong Christian tie, one gave a hint at a link to Judaism, whilst another pointed to pagan ways of looking at things.

Can anyone explain why ? Is gnosticism actually very wide ranging, with many 'sections'?

[spacemonkey]

Just because a belief has foundations in many faiths, does that make it contradictory? Did you ever consider that all religions might come from the same root. Gnostics attempt to reconcile the differances between the faiths and realize that it is the MESSAGE that is important.

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by spacemonkey

Just because a belief has foundations in many faiths, does that make it contradictory? Did you ever consider that all religions might come from the same root. Gnostics attempt to reconcile the differances between the faiths and realize that it is the MESSAGE that is important.

Personally, i wouldn't word it like that. Mani attempted to merge Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Buddhism. But i reckon most Gnostics searched for the wisdom in each faith, rather than trying to reconcile the differences. You are right though, it is the message that is important to us, not the mythology, dogma or propaganda present in each faith.

Also though, i wouldn't say that any Gnostic text contradicts another, they all have the same basic underpinnings, its only the cultural mythology which differs. So, while a Gnostic may be a a Jew, Chriatian, Muslim or Pagan; their essential Gnosticism (Demiurge theory plus the search for Gnosis) binds them together into one group.

[James the Persian]

Michel,

Part of your problem stems from the fact that the Gnostic religions are syncretistic and pre-date Christianity. When Christianity came along pre-existing Gnostics appear to have adopted certain aspects of the faith (most commonly Christ as a great teacher, but there were some that did believe He was a god, but not Incarnate). The ancient Gnostic sects, those that were Christian, disagreed with one another at least as much as they did with the mainstream Church, so it's probably better to think of Gnosticism as a group of different movements sharing some similarities rather than a religion per se. How the position of the neo-Gnostics compares to any of the groups of antiquity I couldn't really say, though I hope for some clarification so that I can participate in one of Halcyon's other threads which appears to be based on a faulty premise regarding our soteriology.

James

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

Part of your problem stems from the fact that the Gnostic religions are syncretistic and pre-date Christianity. When Christianity came along pre-existing Gnostics appear to have adopted certain aspects of the faith (most commonly Christ as a great teacher, but there were some that did believe He was a god, but not Incarnate). The ancient Gnostic sects, those that were Christian, disagreed with one another at least as much as they did with the mainstream Church, so it's probably better to think of Gnosticism as a group of different movements sharing some similarities rather than a religion per se. How the position of the neo-Gnostics compares to any of the groups of antiquity I couldn't really say, though I hope for some clarification so that I can participate in one of Halcyon's other threads which appears to be based on a faulty premise regarding our soteriology.

I'd say you are correct for the most part, Gnosticism was composed of many movements. But they only differed in their view of mythology, which in Gnosticism is secondary to Gnosis. The belief in Gnosis binds all Gnostics together, like the belief in the deity of Christ binds all the different Christian sects together.

The position of neo-Gnostics is as varied as that of the ancients. Each person's Gnosis is personal, and as such his or her path to Gnosis is also personal and individual. Mythology can be used to group people of similar culture, but doesn't separate them from the wider Gnostic community.

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

I'd say you are correct for the most part, Gnosticism was composed of many movements. But they only differed in their view of mythology, which in Gnosticism is secondary to Gnosis. The belief in Gnosis binds all Gnostics together, like the belief in the deity of Christ binds all the different Christian sects together.

The position of neo-Gnostics is as varied as that of the ancients. Each person's Gnosis is personal, and as such his or her path to Gnosis is also personal and individual. Mythology can be used to group people of similar culture, but doesn't separate them from the wider Gnostic community.

No, I'd say they disagreed on more than just mythology. Two strikingly different views of Christ emerge from different sects, and I'm pretty sure there were more positions than these two. In one view Christ was a man like any other, a teacher or prophet and only adopted son of God (sometimes this is viewed just as a titular thing, other times it's full blown Adoptionalism where He was indwelt by the spirit of God after baptism). The other extreme is the belief that Christ was a god but that He only had the appearance of a body and hence all the physical aspects of His life, including the Crucifixion happened in appearance only. This dualistic and docetistic variety of Gnosticism believed that matter was evil and created by the 'bad' God of the Old Testament whereas the other form of Gnosticism I mentioned had no such belief. In my opinion this is a profound difference that has major ramifications for many aspects of the faith. Do modern neo-Gnostics subscribe to either of these positions or to something else entirely?

James

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

No, I'd say they disagreed on more than just mythology. Two strikingly different views of Christ emerge from different sects, and I'm pretty sure there were more positions than these two. In one view Christ was a man like any other, a teacher or prophet and only adopted son of God (sometimes this is viewed just as a titular thing, other times it's full blown Adoptionalism where He was indwelt by the spirit of God after baptism). The other extreme is the belief that Christ was a god but that He only had the appearance of a body and hence all the physical aspects of His life, including the Crucifixion happened in appearance only. This dualistic and docetistic variety of Gnosticism believed that matter was evil and created by the 'bad' God of the Old Testament whereas the other form of Gnosticism I mentioned had no such belief. In my opinion this is a profound difference that has major ramifications for many aspects of the faith. Do modern neo-Gnostics subscribe to either of these positions or to something else entirely?

James

Again you are correct, for the most part. I've never heard of a group who rejected the belief in a 'bad god', this is called the theory of Demiurge, and as far as i know it is one of two beliefs you must have to really be a Gnostic. If you have evidence to the contrary i'd be delighted to read it.
You talk about the differences in the groups' view of Jesus - i'd suggest these are mythological difference, and nothing more. Gnostics concentrate on the message of Jesus, it is that which is important to us.

[Buttons*]

Originally Posted by spacemonkey

Just because a belief has foundations in many faiths, does that make it contradictory? Did you ever consider that all religions might come from the same root. Gnostics attempt to reconcile the differances between the faiths and realize that it is the MESSAGE that is important.

....i love you!