Early Christianity and Gnosticism

No*s · Mar 3, 2005

In another thread Halcyon and I were starting to debate this, but it wasn't the debate forum, so I'm transplanting her post and my response here.

Halcyon said:
We could debate/discuss this until the cows come home.

Let the games begin

.

Halcyon said:
St. Irenaeus was a heresy hunter, although some truth may be found in his writings, his goal was to reassure 'good christians' that they were the righteous ones and that those who differed were all evil. I regard his views on gnosticism in a similar light to how i regard some fundamentalist christian's ignorant views on Wicca.

The Christian form of the movement is long dead, though. There are no really reliable sources, but a few texts here and there. We have no description of their practices and beliefs. Whether he was accurate in all his portrayels, we do know a couple of things from it:

We know that St. Irenaeus argued Apostolic Succession, just as those before him did. He could do so and apparently considered it to bear weight. His portrayel, and that of other Christians of the time is that the Gnostics tended to separate from the Church and become schismatics.

I don't know of much evidence to the contrary here. If they broke away, they weren't part of the original unless we can demonstrate something really funky happening.

We also know that the Orthodox Church was pretty uniform then. We can see this in St. Irenaeus' writings, the writings of St. Ignatius, both of which conform well with the New Testament, and so on. On the converse, from St. Irenaeus' writings, we see a plethora of mutually exclucive Gnostic sects. While Gnosticism clearly predates Christianity, it cannot be a part of original Christian teaching. The heterogenous nature of it argues against it, and must be accounted for otherwise.

Halcyon said:
Gnosticism is not of course limited to christianity, pagan forms predate christianity, there are also extant islamic forms, the mandaeans. Gnosticism predates 'the beginning'. Many believe Jesus himself was gnostic, many of his teachings seem intrinsically gnostic and (for me) seem strange when interpreted in the messianic 'death cult' way of the orthodox church.

On this, we can largely agree. I never thought of Mandianism as Islamic, but rather, as pre-Islamic

.

On Jesus' being a Gnostic, I'd like to see more explanation of what you have for this. It would contradict the Synoptic tradition, which encompasses more than our Gospels and is the earliest records of Christ's sayings. You have my curiosity picqued there.

Halcyon said:
]Morals are seen as personal ideas by gnostics, what may seem right for some may not be for others. You mention some sects using women as sex slaves, where did you read this? I find it more likely that the sect in question was mearly more sexually free than the sexually inhibited church followers, if you have evidence to the contrary i'll happily retract that statement, unless the evidence is from a heresy hunter of course.

We don't have anything extant from the sect. However, I think you're dismissing St. Irenaeus description rather quickly. In many ways, the descriptions of this side of things in Against Heresies sounds a lot like how I would describe a sect like the Church of Love.

As we both realize, after all, Gnosticism wasn't a unified group, and well, it'd be extreme idealism to expect the best out of any single group, much less dozens upon dozens each quite different from the others.

Halcyon said:
What makes you think Marcion's edition was the edited version? There are those who think its the other way round.

Very simple. He edited it to get rid of any references to the Jewish people, because he was anti-semitic. What makes you think it wasn't edited? That's the closest I can think of to Orthodoxy massively editing a Scripture...and here it wasn't Orthodoxy.

Halcyon said:
Some people simply cannot comprehend gnostic thought, what would be the point in teaching those who will never understand. As for riddles, jesus's teachings are only riddles for those who look at them in the wrong light.

That misappropriates Jesus' use of parables (not riddles). Jesus' teaching in parables were aimed at hiding His teachings from the prideful, not from the simple-minded. If anything, He told very simple points and tended to strongly favor the unwashed masses. The points of the parables didn't so much hide it from the leaders because they couldn't intellectually understand them, but because their heart was far from them.

Gnosticism, though, forms its spiritual truths in such a fashion that some of humanity are by nature unfit to receive it. They lack the intellectual capacity, and thus, cannot be as spiritual as others.

Halcyon said:
No, quite right, i may be guilty of exaggeration. What i was getting at is that heresy is subjective. For the orthodox the gnostics were heretics, for the gnostics the orthodox were heretics. Christianity considers all other religions heresy as does islam (doesn't it, i'm not totally sure?), and other faiths find fault in christianity. Everyone can't be right, otherwise we'd all be heretics.

So i think heresy simply doesn't exist, in the sense of the orignal post.

In the context of Christianity, Gnosticism is a deviation, which is the definition of the term hersy (it means something akin to "schism")

. I think we'll have fun with this thread.

I have too many smilies, so I'm turning off images lol.

Jayhawker Soule · Mar 4, 2005

I chose not to address this when originally posted in the hopes that Halcyon would respond. I'm resurrecting it now still hopeful that this may yet occur, to say that I appreciate No*s comments on the matter, and to note the follow ...

There is a tendency for those content with the intellectually superficial to romanticize relatively old things resurrected by relatively new discoveries. So, today, gnosticism is found everywhere, from under the bed to the Gospel of Thomas. Earlier, all that was wise emanated from the Essene. Earlier still, the Great Pyramid of Giza was the magic decoder ring with which one might unlock the secrets of "Universal Truth".

It was my hope that we might see the topic of Gnosticism and nascent Christianity pursued in a more sober manner. It seemed to me that No*s comments were a good start ...

No*s · Mar 4, 2005

I also hope the thread will catch on. It does seem Gnosticism is found everywhere. I've even seen people say it's in the Gospel of John

which makes no sense to me given that part of its polemic seems to be against a Gnostic sect in the Johannine community.

I hope she comes and defends her side. I've never had the priviledge of debating this subject

.

anders · Mar 4, 2005

It's just too easy to explain Gnosticism as a "blend of Judaism, Hellenism and Zoroastrism" or something like that. From the back cover of
Williams, Michael A.: Rethinking Gnosticism: an argument for dismantling a dubious category

"The term gnosticism, which often connotes a single religious movement, gives the false impression of a monolithic phenomenon. Here Michael Williams challenges the validity of the category "gnosticism" and the ways it hs been described. WIlliams uncoers the similarities and differencies among some major traditions widely categorized as gnostic ..."

I just started reading it, and Elaine Pagels: The Gnostic Gospels , so I can't enter any discussion now, but I hope that you will go on.

linwood · Mar 4, 2005

Found it!!

Nothing huh?

I was looking forward to it.

No*s · Mar 4, 2005

linwood said:
Found it!!

Nothing huh?

I was looking forward to it.

I noticed your post and posted a link in the other thread

. I'm a little disappointed by the lack of debate as well. There'll always be another time, though

.

linwood · Mar 4, 2005

No*s said:
I noticed your post and posted a link in the other thread . I'm a little disappointed by the lack of debate as well. There'll always be another time, though .

I actually followed your View all posts by No*s option.
You post alot.

I`ve read about gnosticism and read some of the Nag hamadi (SP?) library and alot of the correspondence of the orthadox church concerning it.
It would be interesting to witness a debate between you and halcyon.

Hope she finds the time.

No*s · Mar 5, 2005

linwood said:
I actually followed your View all posts by No*s option.
You post alot.

Who, me, post?! NEVER!

What I can say is that yall have a pretty good grasp of how I reason and what I believe by this point

.

linwood said:
I`ve read about gnosticism and read some of the Nag hamadi (SP?) library and alot of the correspondence of the orthadox church concerning it.
It would be interesting to witness a debate between you and halcyon.

Hope she finds the time.

Perhaps. She doesn't post that much, so it may yet come.

Halcyon · Mar 5, 2005

Um... i'm not actually a she, note the masculine sign under my items , my avatar is actually Amy Lee from the band evanescence, i chose that picture because 1. i like the her and the band, 2. i admire her for not really caring what people think and 3. because she looked deep in thought. I can see it would be an easy mistake to make, hope you don't think Circle One is actually David Bowie though, lol...
Not that i'm really offended, you can think i'm a green elephant if you want.

Anyway, sorry i haven't responded yet, i didn't actually realise you were creating another thread, i'm dumb sometimes.

Right...

We know that St. Irenaeus argued Apostolic Succession, just as those before him did. He could do so and apparently considered it to bear weight. His portrayel, and that of other Christians of the time is that the Gnostics tended to separate from the Church and become schismatics.

I think it's all a matter of interpretation, Irenaeus would obviously see the gnostics as separatists, he was looking at them from a biased point of view. Whereas i think of it more as the gnostics interpreted jesus's teachings in a different way to the orthodox, in a gnostic way (which obviously i believe to be the correct way) and so they weren't a group which separated off like the protestants from the catholics, but as an originally and almost independantly evolved group.

On the converse, from St. Irenaeus' writings, we see a plethora of mutually exclucive Gnostic sects

Hmm... yes all religions diversify with time, i wouldn't say mutually exclusive though after all the link is gnosis.

While Gnosticism clearly predates Christianity, it cannot be a part of original Christian teaching.

I'll get to this in a minute, but what do you mean be original christian teaching, those of jesus or of the church?

The heterogenous nature of it argues against it, and must be accounted for otherwise.

Its heterogenous nature is, i feel, what is fundamentally great about it and fundamental to it. All gnostics must have different beliefs as gnosis is a personally and individually realised thing.

I never thought of Mandianism as Islamic, but rather, as pre-Islamic .

Indeed, i screwed up there, but they do (or did) have an amiable relationship with islam, i confused myself.

On Jesus' being a Gnostic, I'd like to see more explanation of what you have for this. It would contradict the Synoptic tradition, which encompasses more than our Gospels and is the earliest records of Christ's sayings. You have my curiosity picqued there.

Ok, i haven't got any literature to hand so i'm going to try and explain what i mean without it; i just quickly stole this off a website;
"I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." (John 10:30-33)

Is jesus making himself out to be god? "I and the Father are one." from an orthodox perspective i guess you'd say jesus was saying he is god, yes? From a gnostic perspective (and by that i mean MY gnostic perspective) he is saying he is one with god, as we all are in our true form, and he has become one with god through his gnosis. A matter of interpretation.

Also;
And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me does not believe in Me, but in Him who sent Me. And he who beholds Me beholds the One who sent Me. I have come as light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness." (John 12:44-46)

For a start this line alone seems to contradict the popular view of christ as god, to me anyway "He who believes in Me does not believe in Me, but in Him who sent Me." What's your interpretation? I interpret it as 'he who believes in the teachings of jesus does not believe in the divinity/greatness of jesus but in the greatness of god'.
This line "I have come as light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness." says to me that jesus's teachings will enlighten you, to believe in his teachings is to come out of the darkness that is ignorance. No doubt you have a different interpretation?

Granted these quotes come from John and not the synoptic gospels, but do you get the idea?

Very simple. He edited it to get rid of any references to the Jewish people, because he was anti-semitic. What makes you think it wasn't edited? That's the closest I can think of to Orthodoxy massively editing a Scripture...and here it wasn't Orthodoxy.

I can't know which was written first, but i won't just accept the 'offical' verson was written first just because it's in the bible, go here for possible evidence for marcions being the original http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3827/wait2.htm.
Also i think you may be taking a tenet of gnostic belief for anti-semitism, i'm not anti-semitic but i don't believe that the god of the OT is actually God, marcion held a similar belief.

That misappropriates Jesus' use of parables (not riddles). Jesus' teaching in parables were aimed at hiding His teachings from the prideful, not from the simple-minded. If anything, He told very simple points and tended to strongly favor the unwashed masses. The points of the parables didn't so much hide it from the leaders because they couldn't intellectually understand them, but because their heart was far from them.

Gnosticism, though, forms its spiritual truths in such a fashion that some of humanity are by nature unfit to receive it. They lack the intellectual capacity, and thus, cannot be as spiritual as others.

Hmm... again i see this as a matter of interpretation. The gnostics see three kinds of people, the hyletics are concerned with nothing but material things, the psychics live in a world of their own imagining and are easily led (note my signature) and the pneumatics are by nature spirtual and can comprehend gnosis. Some see this as unchangeable, if you're born hyletic you remain hyletic, i don't believe that, i see it more as an evolution people must go through either in their life time or via reincarnation, although you can still get people born pneumatic, jesus for example. It's not anything to do with intellectual capacity but more the state of the soul, its level of spiritual evolution.

I'd like to point out that i don't represent the beliefs of other gnostics, also i'm not a gnostic in the literal sense since i haven't yet experienced gnosis, but gnostic is the only sufficient title that i have.

No*s · Mar 5, 2005

Halcyon said:
Um... i'm not actually a she, note the masculine sign under my items , my avatar is actually Amy Lee from the band evanescence, i chose that picture because 1. i like the her and the band, 2. i admire her for not really caring what people think and 3. because she looked deep in thought. I can see it would be an easy mistake to make, hope you don't think Circle One is actually David Bowie though, lol...
Not that i'm really offended, you can think i'm a green elephant if you want.

Anyway, sorry i haven't responded yet, i didn't actually realise you were creating another thread, i'm dumb sometimes.

The miscommunication was my fault. My apologies. I'm glad we can further the discussion

Halcyon said:
No*s said:

Very simple. He edited it to get rid of any references to the Jewish people, because he was anti-semitic. What makes you think it wasn't edited? That's the closest I can think of to Orthodoxy massively editing a Scripture...and here it wasn't Orthodoxy.

Click to expand...

I can't know which was written first, but i won't just accept the 'offical' verson was written first just because it's in the bible, go here for possible evidence for marcions being the original http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3827/wait2.htm.
Also i think you may be taking a tenet of gnostic belief for anti-semitism, i'm not anti-semitic but i don't believe that the god of the OT is actually God, marcion held a similar belief.

I'll deal with this one first

.

When I finished reading the article you linked to, the first thing I would like to point out is the logical fallacy in this argument from the page:

Leaving out of view, for the present the wholesale accumulation of matter, aggregating 315 verses, the law of accretion will be well illustrated by those cases where one or more verses in Marcion are found swollen into several in Luke, or where a single passage has additions.

In arguing that, the author is arguing his conclusion as his principle argument. The point under dispute is that Marcion's Gospel is an abridgement of Luke's Gospel with a principle purpose of reflecting antisemitic theology. The qeustion, thus, is whether this is an abridgement.

The fact that this is the point of dispute means that we cannot simply site the rule that the shorter reading is preferred to the longer. It is a principle, not a universal, even when we don't have cause for suspecting an abridgement. There are always exceptions to the rule.

The author then repeatedly uses this rule to argue for a Marcionic priority. This, however, is very difficult to argue or support. In essence, many arguments boil down to "We know that Marcion isn't an abridgement of Luke, because it's shorter." I don't think I need to explain the weaknesses in the argument when termed like that.

I now dissect a few of his arguments in order to demonstrate this problem.

Marcion: Saying, "Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, Jesus?"

Luke: Saying, Let (us) alone; what have we to do with thee, Jesus of Nazareth?

The difference is important. According to Matthew, the parents of Jesus, when they returned from Egypt, being warned of God in a dream, turned aside, (they were going to Bethlehem or Jerusalem,) into the parts of Galilee, that a certain prophecy might be fulfilled. The language does not imply that Nazareth was their residence.

The theory of the author of Luke was, that Nazareth was their residence. Accordingly, in this passage, which, though followed in Mark, has no parallel in Matthew; Jesus is addressed as "of Nazareth," a phrase not in Marcion.

There are a couple of problems here. Firstly, Matthew concurs with Luke on Jesus and Nazareth. In Matthew 2.23, we read "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, `He shall be called a Nazarene.'" Likewise, it is used in 21.11, where the crowds call Christ "the prophet from Nazareth."

Mr. Waite is right on one level; Matthew doesn't "imply" Jesus' residence in Nazareth. He states it, unless we want to take issue imply a difference between Nazareth[/] and Nazarine, the latter generally taken to mean "from Nazareth." If we do, though, the author's argument still depends on the accpeted interpretation of Nazarine in Luke.

The next argument:

These are probably interpolations, made for the purpose of establishing Nazareth as the birth-place of Jesus.

Click to expand...

This argument deals with a different passage, but is an extension of the preceding. He fails, though, to explain why it would be important for Luke to do this. We have a theological reason for why Marcion would do such a thing: distance Christ from a Jewish city and the Demiurge.

Luke: "And the whole multitude sought to touch him; for there went Virtue out of him, and healed (them) all."

Marcion: "And the whole multitude sought to touch him."

There is no reason why Marcion, who had not rejected the miracles of Christ, should omit the closing sentence. It is more probable that it was added in Luke, to give expression to a very natural inference on the part of the writer, as to the object of the multitude in pressing forward toward Jesus, and seeking to touch him.

There is no parallel in the other gospels.

Click to expand...

He's right, there is no parallel in any of the other Gospels. However, he argues that it was added on account of Luke's simply wanting to elaborate. Again, though, I have a theological reason for its omission that I can find in Marcion.

Marcion argued that the God of the Old Testament was the Demiurge, and the creator of the material world. Christ came, though, to free the spiritual beings from their material prison and came from a higher power still. This passage asserts that Jesus' body, the material, sent out power when it was touched.

In contradistinction to Marcion, this must assert that the material is good. Marcion has every reason to omit it in order to sustain his theology. We, thus, must choose between an accretion occuring due to a "natural inference on the part of the writer," or we have a deliberate omission of a passage to resolve a theological conflict.

It is just as much a principle in textual criticism that redactors smooth over theological conflicts. A good example is one of this forum's poster's handle: Deut. 32.8. There, "sons of God" was changed to "sons of Israel" to resolve a theological conflict. The former is the original reading. The same thing pretty clearly happened here and in both passages above.

Again, the author juxtaposes Luke 7.36 and Marcion.

Luke writes: And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat.

marcion writes: And going into the house of a Pharisee, he ate with him.

Luke writes: And behold, a woman in the city, who was a sinner, when she knew that (Jesus) sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment. And stood at his feet, be hind (him,) weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe (them) with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed (them) with the ointment.

Marcion writes: But a sinful woman, standing near, before his feet, washed them with tears, and anointed them, and kissed them.

his touching incident, simply and beautifully told in the sixteen Greek words of Marcion, is spun out, by the author of Luke, into more than three times the number, with no improvement in the story.

The washing of the feet of Jesus, which in Marcion is left as a figurative expression, denoting the great grief of the woman, is stated in Luke as an actual fact. while weeping, "she began to wash his feet with tears." Then, having washed them, she must needs "wipe them with the hairs of her head."

There can be but little doubt, that Marcion was first written, and that the author of Luke drew upon his imagination in filling up the text.

Click to expand...

Again, though, we have a theological reason for this change. First, Jesus "desired" to go into the house of a Pharisee, a Jew. Then we have the demotion of one of the women of the city's actions. If we are to infer anything about the city, it's a Jewish city and she is a Jewess. We, again, have theological cause for this incident.

Due to length, this is my last:

The language of Marcion, as given by Epiphanius, is highly elliptical. It was probably preceded by some sentence having reference to the storm. The text of the synoptics is more copious; especially Mark, in which a pillow is provided for the head of Jesus.

Click to expand...

There is no way to even begin arguing that Marcion somehow predates Mark. This quote illustrates particularly well the fallacy in the argument here. The Synoptics are established by the end of the first century. Marcion's was not. They are quoted in the first century, especially Mark, which establish them before Mark. However, he makes no argument for a later Marcan date here. This paragraph in the text as it stands is a liability.

The vast majority of his arguments may be so addressed. There are some that would be relatively strong had all things been equal, but all things are not equal. This passage makes a very poor case for Marcionic priority, which assumes its conclusion ("Marcion isn't an abridgement of Luke, because it's shorter") and fails to addres the reasons why Marcion is said to have abridged Luke. The examples find themselves more illustrating theological redactions than they do showing that Luke as an expansion.

I had this color-coded, but that turned out to be a mess, so I eliminated it .

EDIT:

I was going to make a defense of a first century dating of Luke, but that would be long. I'll skip it for now.

No*s · Mar 5, 2005

My second follow-up. I apologize for two posts, but responding to an article can be a long bit of business

.

Halcyon said:
I think it's all a matter of interpretation, Irenaeus would obviously see the gnostics as separatists, he was looking at them from a biased point of view. Whereas i think of it more as the gnostics interpreted jesus's teachings in a different way to the orthodox, in a gnostic way (which obviously i believe to be the correct way) and so they weren't a group which separated off like the protestants from the catholics, but as an originally and almost independantly evolved group.

Yes, it is a matter of interpretation. However, St. Irenaeus isn't the only one making the argument. In I John, the author is dealing with a sect that is almost certainly Gnostic that broke away and refused to listen to the Apostle (or author if you feel it isn't the apostle), which makes them a schismatic/separatist on that occasion. In the book of Revelation John treats some sects that are normally classified as Gnostics and identifies them by teachers with symbolic names (e.g. "Jezebel" and the "Nicolaitans"). In fact, the entire Johannine corpus seems to deal with the issue (including the Gospel of John), and everywhere John mentions it, the manner either states or strongly implies schismatics.

We can turn to II Peter and Jude. They, also, dealt with the Gnostic sects. In their portrayels, the Gnostics "creep" into households and lead the people astray, and within the context, it implies they "drag them away." It would be impossible for them to be coming into the Church the way the passages describe, had they been there from the beginning. Instead, we see the movement contradicting the principles of an established community.

We see, again, in St. Ignatius the same principle. Here, the Gnostic sects are identified by their disdain for matter, a trait of Graeco-Roman culture of the day, and how it applies to the Eucharist. The principles denied the Real Presence, and St. Ignatius argued against it and the groups that taught it. The manner in which he argued was episcopal authority, which would be an impossible argument had the problem been simply an internal one, because it strongly implies a mostly united bishopric.

None of our surviving Gnostic literature portrays the same in reverse that I'm aware of. I'm open to correction since I haven't read it all, but if this is an accurate representation of our evidence, then I may argue that they are schismatics based on what we know.

Halcyon said:
Hmm... yes all religions diversify with time, i wouldn't say mutually exclusive though after all the link is gnosis.

They are only not mutually exclucive if one relativises truth, which is something I do not readily do.

However on diversification, the only argument we have that they were ever united is St. Irenaeus, whom you reject. We don't have any evidence for it, and we have no reason to assume it. All we know in this respect is that Gnosticism was a syncretistic movement that adapted popular Hellenistic religion to various sects and established religions and adopted religions (for instance Manicheanism from the Persian religion).

The diversity over time and origin groups is more indicative of syncretism than it is of a unified origin in Christianity. In fact, we have St. Irenaeus and St. Ignatius giving evidence for the unity of the Orthodox Catholic faith over a wide geographical area. This unity is more indicative of an original deposit than a movement that grew later and an original Gnostic one. In essence, we have a diverse, contradictory movement vs. a unified movement, both over a large geographical area. The more unified one will tend to be the older one if all things are equal.

Halcyon said:
I'll get to this in a minute, but what do you mean be original christian teaching, those of jesus or of the church?

There is no way to separate them. We don't have works from a "historical" Jesus, only the Jesus of the Church vs. Jesus of the Gnostics, which is the point under dispute.

Halcyon said:
Its heterogenous nature is, i feel, what is fundamentally great about it and fundamental to it. All gnostics must have different beliefs as gnosis is a personally and individually realised thing.

Yes, I can understand how you think that

. However, this heterogenous nature is simultaneously evidence against its being the original form of Christianity.

Halcyon said:
Indeed, i screwed up there, but they do (or did) have an amiable relationship with islam, i confused myself.

Feh, don't worry about it. We all do. It really doesn't remove substance from your argument.

Halcyon said:
Is jesus making himself out to be god? "I and the Father are one." from an orthodox perspective i guess you'd say jesus was saying he is god, yes? From a gnostic perspective (and by that i mean MY gnostic perspective) he is saying he is one with god, as we all are in our true form, and he has become one with god through his gnosis. A matter of interpretation.

Also;
And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me does not believe in Me, but in Him who sent Me. And he who beholds Me beholds the One who sent Me. I have come as light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness." (John 12:44-46)

For a start this line alone seems to contradict the popular view of christ as god, to me anyway "He who believes in Me does not believe in Me, but in Him who sent Me." What's your interpretation? I interpret it as 'he who believes in the teachings of jesus does not believe in the divinity/greatness of jesus but in the greatness of god'.
This line "I have come as light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness." says to me that jesus's teachings will enlighten you, to believe in his teachings is to come out of the darkness that is ignorance. No doubt you have a different interpretation?

Granted these quotes come from John and not the synoptic gospels, but do you get the idea?

Yes, I get the idea, but I think it's time to crack out the doctrine of theosis, which I think you're unfamiliar with

. But first, there are a couple of notes about the Gospel of John. First, similar to Revelation, the Gospel of John is an apocalyptic work. Jesus performs exactly seven miracles. He speaks in long symbolic passages with difficult meanings, whereas in the Synoptics, He speaks clearly and up front.

There can't be much mistaking this pattern, and as such, we have to realize the layer of interpretation between us and Jesus in John. It wasn't meant to be simply literal, but like the book of Revelation, Daniel, or others, it was written in such a way that it would obscure many of its truths from the author's persecutors while at the same time making its point to its intended audience. Thus, we can't project all these passages back onto Christ as His method of teaching

.

Now, on theosis, it states in essence "God became man so that men might become gods." In John 10.37ff. Jesus aserts that those to whom the logos came were made gods by their interaction with it. He teaches that those who are in Him are branches on a vine, who share in the life of the vine (like Paul's passage in Romans 11). He teaches He is the Water of Life and the ones who drink it have "living water" flowing out from them.

These passages, and others, have little meaning if Christ isn't God. If you want more detail on this doctrine, I can go into it, but the last important matter I need to point out is that the Gospel of John was apparently written against Gnostics. Jesus became flesh to affect our salvation and our union with God (the emphasis on flesh in Jn. 1 and on the Real Presence can only be explained when we look at I John, where we see a Gnostic schism). John is not a good book to argue Gnosticism from as a result.

Halcyon said:
Hmm... again i see this as a matter of interpretation. The gnostics see three kinds of people, the hyletics are concerned with nothing but material things, the psychics live in a world of their own imagining and are easily led (note my signature) and the pneumatics are by nature spirtual and can comprehend gnosis. Some see this as unchangeable, if you're born hyletic you remain hyletic, i don't believe that, i see it more as an evolution people must go through either in their life time or via reincarnation, although you can still get people born pneumatic, jesus for example. It's not anything to do with intellectual capacity but more the state of the soul, its level of spiritual evolution.

However, the conclusion is logically unavoidable. A retarded boy cannot understand gnosis. That's principle an intellectual matter (gnosis is understood via the dianoia in contrast to the nous). A retarded boy or an autistic girl will never have the intellectual capacity to understand it. We have types of intelligences in us, and they're pretty hard-wired. Someone with a high body intelligence, but a low ability for abstraction, while he may be able to operate wonderfully in society, will have an inability to comprehend the gnosis.

I can't see how this can allow the retarded, autistic, or those who aren't intellectually smart. In essence, it excludes them. I'm open to understanding how they can understand gnosis, but I don't see how their minds, as they are, can anymore than somebody as weak as me will ever be able to be a world-class body-builder.

Halcyon said:
I'd like to point out that i don't represent the beliefs of other gnostics, also i'm not a gnostic in the literal sense since i haven't yet experienced gnosis, but gnostic is the only sufficient title that i have.

I understand. It's a syncretistic movement now, which is recreating one that died. You can't speak for others.

oracle · Mar 5, 2005

Halycon said:
Hmm... again i see this as a matter of interpretation. The gnostics see three kinds of people, the hyletics are concerned with nothing but material things, the psychics live in a world of their own imagining and are easily led (note my signature) and the pneumatics are by nature spirtual and can comprehend gnosis. Some see this as unchangeable, if you're born hyletic you remain hyletic, i don't believe that, i see it more as an evolution people must go through either in their life time or via reincarnation, although you can still get people born pneumatic, jesus for example. It's not anything to do with intellectual capacity but more the state of the soul, its level of spiritual evolution.

In other words, physical, mental, and spiritual. This is the threefold nature of man, widely known and understood in early christianity. It has strong relation to the three temptations of Jesus (Mathew has the correct chronological order IMO), the three reasons why Eve ate the forbidden fruit,
the lusts of the flesh -- lusts of the eyes -- and the boastful pride of life,
the beast -- false prophet -- and satan.

No*s said:
Now, on theosis, it states in essence "God became man so that men might become gods." In John 10.37ff. Jesus aserts that those to whom the logos came were made gods by their interaction with it. He teaches that those who are in Him are branches on a vine, who share in the life of the vine (like Paul's passage in Romans 11). He teaches He is the Water of Life and the ones who drink it have "living water" flowing out from them. These passages, and others, have little meaning if Christ isn't God. If you want more detail on this doctrine, I can go into it...

Please give me more detail on this doctrine.

All this makes complete sense if you apply Kabbalism and Gnosticism. This is very symbolical and not literal at all. Jesus is not saying that he is God. The Logos and Christ are one and the same (Bet-Kaf-Resh, first born son), first distinction, primordial point. It has nothing to do with a person, the literal Jesus is simply a symbolical avatar and not the truer meaning of the sense. If Jesus is literally the water of life, then how is it possible that we drink him?

No*s said:
the last important matter I need to point out is that the Gospel of John was apparently written against Gnostics. Jesus became flesh to affect our salvation and our union with God (the emphasis on flesh in Jn. 1 and on the Real Presence can only be explained when we look at I John, where we see a Gnostic schism). John is not a good book to argue Gnosticism from as a result.

Apparently, you do not have concrete evidense. I can actually show you patterns of symbolism in the canon that are apparently very Gnostic. I can also show you parts of the arguement that were apparently written to the Catholics.

No*s said:
However, the conclusion is logically unavoidable. A retarded boy cannot understand gnosis. That's principle an intellectual matter (gnosis is understood via the dianoia in contrast to the nous). A retarded boy or an autistic girl will never have the intellectual capacity to understand it. We have types of intelligences in us, and they're pretty hard-wired. Someone with a high body intelligence, but a low ability for abstraction, while he may be able to operate wonderfully in society, will have an inability to comprehend the gnosis.

Even people who are intellectually smart still cannot understand Gnosis. It's really not a matter of salvation in the first place IMO. The Gnostics saw Jesus as a divine revealer, not a redeemer. The Gnosis is actually very simple.

No*s said:
I can't see how this can allow the retarded, autistic, or those who aren't intellectually smart. In essence, it excludes them.

Ironically, the Orthodoxy seems to exclude the scientifical and intellectually smart in opposition to blind faith. The Orthodoxy seems to have excluded many.

Pah said:
Pope John Paul II's Memory and Identity, released just last week, blames the Enlightenment for the moral collapse of the 20th century.

No*s said:
I'm open to understanding how they can understand gnosis, but I don't see how their minds, as they are, can anymore than somebody as weak as me will ever be able to be a world-class body-builder. I understand. It's a syncretistic movement now, which is recreating one that died. You can't speak for others.

You don't seem to understand Gnosis.

No*s · Mar 5, 2005

oracle said:
Please give me more detail on this doctrine.

I have more at: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7904&highlight=Christian:+Christ+john

It will explain more about the doctrine.

oracle said:
All this makes complete sense if you apply Kabbalism and Gnosticism. This is very symbolical and not literal at all. Jesus is not saying that he is God. The Logos and Christ are one and the same (Bet-Kaf-Resh, first born son), first distinction, primordial point. It has nothing to do with a person, the literal Jesus is simply a symbolical avatar and not the truer meaning of the sense. If Jesus is literally the water of life, then how is it possible that we drink him?

The water of life would be His blood ingested in the Eucharist. Christ is incarnated in it

.

oracle said:
Apparently, you do not have concrete evidense. I can actually show you patterns of symbolism in the canon that are apparently very Gnostic. I can also show you parts of the arguement that were apparently written to the Catholics

Well, if you want evidence for the "apparently," we need to first realize the Gnosticism was anti-material. In the opening chapter of John, it asserts "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God, and all things that are were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made." Then in verse 14, it asserts that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us," which is completely incompatible with Gnostic anti-materialism.

In John 6.52, we read that the "Jews therefore quarreled among themselves saying, `How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?'" Jesus' response wasn't to tell them it wasn't literal, but "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you." Christ only builds on the case when there is confusion, and the passage gives no indication that Christ's words here are less than literal...a thinly veiled reference to the Eucharist.

When we reach our conclusion in the book, we see Christ eating in John 21, but before that in 20.27, the book makes a point that St. Thomas had to place his fingers in Jesus' side. When he did, he proclaimed "My Lord, and my God!" It's an emphatic statement, and there's no room in the text to say he was meaning anything other than the God.

When we couple this with I John, the same author or at the very least same community and problem, we see a clear problem. First, a group has borken off and schismed away. He writes, "They went out from us to show that they were not of us," and also "Every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of Antichrist." Here, St. John makes it clear that he is referring to a schismatic group that broke away and denied the material, the very M.O. of a great many Gnostic groups.

The "apparently" wasn't to say that I had doubts, but to show that this would require some explanation, and the post was going to be too long as it stood. What I'm talking about, with the schism and all, is quite certain. It is also quite certain that it would be difficult to deny this group is Gnostic.

oracle said:
Even people who are intellectually smart still cannot understand Gnosis. It's really not a matter of salvation in the first place IMO. The Gnostics saw Jesus as a divine revealer, not a redeemer.

That doesn't help counter my argument about the way it excludes whole classes of people as incapable of even being spiritual, simply because of some attribute they can't change.

oracle said:
Ironically, the Orthodoxy seems to exclude the scientifical and intellectually smart in opposition to blind faith.

Orthodoxy doesn't demand blind faith, but it does demand faith. Just believing in God or the spiritual requires faith, so I think we're on level territory here.

oracle said:
You don't understand Gnosis.

Then explain my errors to me and try and place it in Early Christianity. As it stands, I may not understand your faith very well, but I think I have a decent grasp of Gnosticism as it was before it died out and was recreated.

oracle · Mar 5, 2005

No*s said:
Well, if you want evidence for the "apparently," we need to first realize the Gnosticism was anti-material. In the opening chapter of John, it asserts "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God, and all things that are were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made." Then in verse 14, it asserts that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us," which is completely incompatible with Gnostic anti-materialism.

IMO, this has nothing to do with anti-materialism. The Gnostics had their own schisms in reference to this. IMO, its incompatible with their understanding of Jesus. Jesus simply became the avatar and epitome of Christ on symbolical means.

No*s said:
The water of life would be His blood ingested in the Eucharist. Christ is incarnated in it.

Speaking that Christ is not literally a person, but rather the spirit of God which is represented by the blood and baptismal water. Its a little obvious why communion represents unification, since it is the spirit of God that unifies all things, represented by the blood. The bread which represents ego (or the flesh) was dipped in the blood. The duality of flesh and spirit is very Gnostic. IMO, its not the crucifying of Jesus that condones sin, rather it is realizing the Gnosis or logos that we become reconciled which is symbolically represented by the blood in the last supper. Ingestion of the blood symbolically means that we make this unification manifest within us.

Since you believe that, The water of life would be His blood ingested in the Eucharist. Christ is incarnated in it., then tell me how do we ingest Christs Blood? Other than what has been turned into a meaningless routine. Do you think this is all literal?

No*s said:
That doesn't help counter my argument about the way it excludes whole classes of people as incapable of even being spiritual, simply because of some attribute they can't change.

I dont see this argument as being valid.

No*s said:
Orthodoxy doesn't demand blind faith, but it does demand faith. Just believing in God or the spiritual requires faith, so I think we're on level territory here.

But in my definition it takes blind faith, since they disregard any evidence.

No*s said:
Then explain my errors to me and try and place it in Early Christianity. As it stands, I may not understand your faith very well, but I think I have a decent grasp of Gnosticism as it was before it died out and was recreated.

Perhaps you do understand parts of history, but you dont seem to understand Gnosis itself because your arguments and statements are superficial in regards to Gnosis. Perhaps if you knew what it was, you would not be arguing against it.

linwood · Mar 5, 2005

Remember here i`m a serious neophyte in regards to Gnostic Christianity so try to be gentle but I have a couple of questions.

The more unified one will tend to be the older one if all things are equal.

Why do you assume "All things are equal?"

He teaches that those who are in Him are branches on a vine, who share in the life of the vine (like Paul's passage in Romans 11). He teaches He is the Water of Life and the ones who drink it have "living water" flowing out from them.

Do Gnostics acknowledge Paul as an apostle?
There is valid reason to disregard his writings.
Do Gnostics hold any part os the current Bible as authorative?
If not much of your argument doesn`t mean much No*s.
Again remember I truly don`t know .
I`m asking.
Considering Gnostics are so heterogenous, is there any body of texts recognised by all as authorative?

The Gnosis is actually very simple.

Could you spare a few lines as a quick definition as you see it.
I have an idea but I`ve had few opportunities to speak with anyone who practices.

Ironically, the Orthodoxy seems to exclude the scientifical and intellectually smart in opposition to blind faith. The Orthodoxy seems to have excluded many.

Good point.

No*s · Mar 5, 2005

oracle said:
IMO, this has nothing to do with anti-materialism. The Gnostics had their own schisms in reference to this. IMO, its incompatible with their understanding of Jesus. Jesus simply became the avatar and epitome of Christ on symbolical means.

And that is precisely what the Apostle John was arguing against. Neither he, nor his student Ignatius, viewed it that way. That's the whole point of John 1, the claim on the Eucharist, and the statement that "every spirit that teaches Christ is come in the flesh" is designed to promote. They didn't view it as simply symbolic.

oracle said:
Speaking that Christ is not literally a person, but rather the spirit of God which is represented by the blood and baptismal water. Its a little obvious why communion represents unification, since it is the spirit of God that unifies all things, represented by the blood. The bread which represents ego (or the flesh) was dipped in the blood. The duality of flesh and spirit is very Gnostic. IMO, its not the crucifying of Jesus that condones sin, rather it is realizing the Gnosis or logos that we become reconciled which is symbolically represented by the blood in the last supper. Ingestion of the blood symbolically means that we make this unification manifest within us.

I think this is rather difficult to support, even the Gnostics regarded Him as a person and went to great lengths to stipulate things, whether it was the Christ possessed the human Jesus, or that Jesus' body was an illusion, or that Jesus never went to the cross. They always made some pretty lengthy explanations on how Jesus didn't suffer physically or to compromise the physical.

Could you supply some historical documents to demonstrate your view is the one held?

oracle said:
Since you believe that, The water of life would be His blood ingested in the Eucharist. Christ is incarnated in it., then tell me how do we ingest Christs Blood? Other than what has been turned into a meaningless routine. Do you think this is all literal?

Yes.

oracle said:
I dont see this argument as being valid.

Where does the logic fail?

oracle said:
But in my definition it takes blind faith, since they disregard any evidence.

It, however, catches you as well. You haven't supplied evidence in this thread, and we can't prove the existence of God. That's not exactly a fine criticism of someone...

oracle said:
Perhaps you do understand parts of history, but you dont seem to understand Gnosis itself because your arguments and statements are superficial in regards to Gnosis. Perhaps if you knew what it was, you would not be arguing against it.

Or perhaps what you believe is separated from historic Gnosticism. I'd love to discuss the first and second century movements, but we need more than assertions that each of us doesn't understand the subject.

oracle · Mar 5, 2005

linwood said:
Could you spare a few lines as a quick definition as you see it.
I have an idea but I`ve had few opportunities to speak with anyone who practices.

It's actually more meaningful when you come to realize it yourself through a process of growth. I can only tell you how I percieve Gnosis on a personal level. This is one simple aspect, as there are more deeper and profound parts to it, it's also Kabbalistic: It is the spiritual totality of our existence. It means that we are all one and the same, nothing seperates, there is no prejudice, no inequality. It is the essence of love itself, it is perfect, un-ending, never changing. It is altruism, selflessness, which exceeds all religion and dogma. It is infinite love, in which nothing finite stands in the way. It is the essence of life itself, represented as pure water and blood. It is Wholeness and Oneness. This is also the kingdom of heaven.

When we allow this perfected love to become manifest within us, when we bear the Christ-like mind, then comes the reconciliation and forgiveness between the self and all things. You have to devotionally "bear the cross" and (figuratively) crucify your own ego-self, you must emulate Jesus, which is partially done by following Mathew 5:38-48. You must let go of any selfishness. IMO, you must act out and externalize it in order to fully realize Gnosis.

[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Mathew 5:43 [/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

What is perfect is this unifying connection of wholeness. The Father himself is this connection. When he said to become perfect like our Father in Heaven, he is implying that we externalize and make this wholeness and connection a reality by loving our enemies, serving others in humility and loving kindness, and dropping our egos.
When Jesus said that he was in the Father and the Father was in him, he was speaking of this unity, he was not claiming that he was God.
[/font]

No*s · Mar 5, 2005

linwood said:
Remember here i`m a serious neophyte in regards to Gnostic Christianity so try to be gentle but I have a couple of questions.

OK, that means I only require you to be able to read four dialects of Greek, Latin, Aramaic, and Ugaritic. Of course, I can only read two of those groupings, but that's beside point

.

linwood said:
Why do you assume "All things are equal?"

I don't consider them equal. I consider them more than equal

.

As I argued, we have records of schisms, classifications of schisms, and whatnot from Orthodoxy. However, there is none from the Gnostics that argue they were the original. We have Gnostics who argue they are reestablishing the lost Christianity, or that they have a secret version of Christianity the Apostles weren't told, or things like that, but not an argument that they were the original in a straightforward fashion like we find in the Apostles.

When I couple that with the unity vs. the heterogenous nature of the two groups, I have a very strong argument that Orthodox Christianity is the original and Gnosticism a schismatic/separatist group.

linwood said:
Do Gnostics acknowledge Paul as an apostle?
There is valid reason to disregard his writings.

Lots of valid reason. However, they accept some, but not all. Others reject them all. Others accepted them all. Gnosticism was pretty diverse. The most similar thing today is Protestantism, but I think Gnosticism was more diverse by a long-shot.

linwood said:
Do Gnostics hold any part os the current Bible as authorative?
If not much of your argument doesn`t mean much No*s.

It appears the Gnostics on this list do

. Even the Orthodox Christians of the day didn't have a closed Bible. That's a later thing in Christianity. Whether they accept my Bible as authoritative really isn't that relevant either. The situations portrayed by it and the extrabiblical writings about schism, continuity, and so on as valid arguments can still be used as an argument by me. They can be used to establish the historical situation even if I can't use them to establish doctrine in all cases.

linwood said:
Again remember I truly don`t know .
I`m asking.

No problem

.

linwood said:
Considering Gnostics are so heterogenous, is there any body of texts recognised by all as authorative?

No, not one recognized by all, and it's hard to draw a line with our knowledge on what was Gnostic. The group didn't exactly have much leadership, nor do we have a concrete list of their books. It gets messy there.

linwood said:
Could you spare a few lines as a quick definition as you see it.
I have an idea but I`ve had few opportunities to speak with anyone who practices.

Historically, Gnosticism was the doctrine that we are in material prisons and need salvation. Christ came, and he imparted a secret knowledge (gnosis), the acceptance or comprehension of which (or sometimes simply the knowledge of it) grants eternal life. It was all a head deal.

One of my favorite examples was that there was one teacher who taught the secret knowledge was the "true" name of Christ. Each letter of Ihsous (h = ita) was then spelled into its composite name. Each letter of each name was done the same way, and so on ad infinitum. This was his secret knowledge.

I don't know what Oracle's secret knowledge is, but the gnosis of the early Gnostics varied greatly.[/QUOTE]

Halcyon · Mar 6, 2005

Stupid time difference leaving me out of the discussion, grrr...

Historically, Gnosticism was the doctrine that we are in material prisons and need salvation. Christ came, and he imparted a secret knowledge (gnosis), the acceptance or comprehension of which (or sometimes simply the knowledge of it) grants eternal life. It was all a head deal.

Hmm... not quite, one of the big things about gnosis is that it cannot be explained in words, not even jesus could just tell people what gnosis is hence all the parables and riddles, gnosis is knowledge in the soul not the mind. Comprehension of gnosis allows the soul to break her cycle of rebirth into physical bodies, to return to God, much like the Hindu idea of karmic rebirth.

I know we're talking about orthodox vs gnostic christianity, but i think its important to remember that we (gnostics) have many teachers not just christ, you mentioned Manichaeism, Mani accepted the teachings of various teachers such as Buddha and the Babylonians. I don't see it as stealing bits from other religions in an eclectic fashion, more as listening to the wisdom and teachings of others.

Do Gnostics hold any part os the current Bible as authorative?

I take it with a pinch of salt as i personally believe its been altered over the centuries to make it more in line with the orthodox viewpoint. But wisdom can be gleaned form many sources if you look hard enough.

As I argued, we have records of schisms, classifications of schisms, and whatnot from Orthodoxy. However, there is none from the Gnostics that argue they were the original. We have Gnostics who argue they are reestablishing the lost Christianity, or that they have a secret version of Christianity the Apostles weren't told, or things like that, but not an argument that they were the original in a straightforward fashion like we find in the Apostles.

When I couple that with the unity vs. the heterogenous nature of the two groups, I have a very strong argument that Orthodox Christianity is the original and Gnosticism a schismatic/separatist group.

I don't remember saying that the gnostics were the original, i said jesus was gnostic but i didn't say the orthodox came later. The way i see it there were two groups, the messianic jews and the pagan/jewish gnostics, the messianic jews took jesus's teachings in the context of their beliefs and orthodoxy was born, the gnostics listened to his teachings and incorporated them into their gnostic views. But essentially, when i look at the words of jesus especially in the Gospels of Thomas and Philip, i see gnostic teachings.

Considering Gnostics are so heterogenous, is there any body of texts recognised by all as authorative?

I think one of the great things about gnosticism is that there is no one "this is the word of god" type of book, gnosis comes from within so knowledge should be sought wherever it may lie to aid in the gaining of gnosis.

Jayhawker Soule · Mar 6, 2005

Halcyon said:
..., i said jesus was gnostic but i didn't say the orthodox came later. ..., when i look at the words of jesus especially in the Gospels of Thomas and Philip, i see gnostic teachings.

People often see what the want to see. In a rather interesting scholarly exchange between Elaine Pagels and Ben Witherington III, Ms. Pagels writes"

As I read it, you make two basic points:

First, that sources like the Gospel of Thomas, being "Gnostic," must be late sourcescoming from the second century, or laterand therefore have nothing to do with the beginnings of the Christian movement.
Second, that what we find in the Gospel of Thomas is "at odds with what we find in New Testament texts"that is, confession of Jesus as the "crucified and risen Lord."

What those of us working on these texts have come to conclude, in the course of extensive research on the Gospel of Thomas and the New Testament gospels, is that the first point is wrong, and the second is questionable. Instead, we're convinced of the following:

First: The Gospel of Thomas is not "Gnostic," but a "gospel" compiled from various sayings traditions, probably around the end of the first century (my dating).[emphasis added - d32.8]

Second: Instead of being "at odds" with what we find in the canonical gospels, the Gospel of Thomas presupposes what Mark tells of Jesus' life, teachings, death, and resurrectionand claims to go beyond it. Thomas depicts the Risen Jesus speaking not of "forgiveness of sins" and "faith," but encouraging each one to "seek, and you shall find" a relationship to God.

see 'Gnostic' Texts vs. the New Testament

Early Christianity and Gnosticism

Captain Obvious

-- untitled --

Captain Obvious

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Captain Obvious

Well-Known Member

Captain Obvious

Lord of the Badgers

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious

Active Member

Captain Obvious

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Captain Obvious

Active Member

Captain Obvious

Lord of the Badgers

-- untitled --