Why Not?

[Buttons*]

Hey ... where'd you all go... ?

right here


some of what you said is true, some of it is a matter of perception.

Good post, frubals!

 

[Tom Davidson]

I'd be interested in which is which...

Thomas

 

[Buttons*]

The discussion of apocryphal texts is a complex one.

If you look at the teachings of the gnostics (ie the 2nd century sects, not the 'principle' of gnosis as such) they invariably try and 'hi-jack' Christian teachings and lead them off somewhere else.

Christ taught about love, and a one-on-one relationship with the Father - he told people to call God 'Abba'.

Gnostics teaching is utterly different - its all about 'knowledge', not love, so gnosis isn't who you are, but what you know ... in gnostic teachings there are inumerable intermediate levels that separate man from God ... syzergies, archons ... and to pass from one to the next you need 'keys' (knowledge again)...

Scripture, and Christ, taught that the world is essentially 'good' - the gnostic view is the world is essentially evil and the soul is trapped here ...

So 'basic' gnostic teaching is anti-Christian at almost every step.

A favourite technique of the gnostics was to write a 'gospel' in which Christ is utterly devisive, and imparts a 'secret teaching' to one, but not the others. So in one Judas is the 'specially chosen', in another it's Mary Magdalene, in another its Thomas ...

Another technique was to insist that although they never met Jesus, the gnostic teachers actually understood what Christ was teaching, whilst the poor old disciples were too stupid and hadn't got a clue ... that fact that 'their' Christianity bears a stunning resemblance to Zoroastrianism/Manicheanism and is nothing like the orthodox canon, nor the Old Testament, speaks for itself.

I see this part differently than you do

The most we know is from Irenaeus, who wrote a refutation of everything they taught. Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of St John, and it is likely that Irenaeus was in communication with people who had actually met Jesus personally, or who 'knew someone who knew him' (and I'll admit that allows for a lot of rumour and misinformation)

But Irenaeus argued that wherever Christianity was taught, the message was the same, in Rome, Alexandria, in Gaul (he was in Lyon) in Antioch ... and yet all those Christians had all got it wrong, and yet wherever gnostics taught, and a 'rule' of gnosticism is that each teacher should make the message his own, and thus no two gnostic teachers taught precisely the same thing, they were all right!

His last argument was that Christ could not have been much good if he hadn't managed to teach even one of his disciples the right message.

And remember that it is axiomatic to gnostic teachings that only a very, very few are saved, because the vast majority of humanity do not have a soul...

Lastly, if you don't believe the Christians, read up on the Greek Philosophers. The Stoics especially ripped into the gnostics at every opportunity for what they saw was very bad philosophy - a lack of reason, logic and intellectual rigour - whilst they acknowledged that they might not believe in the Christian God, Christians argued the case perfectly.

The point is that some gnostics were Christians who tried to express what they thought through what they already knew, others were not Christian at all, but simply wanted to get on the bandwagon (Christianity was spreading like wildfire).

Personally, I am Catholic, but a Christian Neoplatonist, for me Platonic philosophy is far more a 'real gnosis' than the oooh-er mystery stuff the gnostics churn out, but it's tough reading. Gnostics always aimed at popularity, rather than reality.

And if I were to bang my gong, I'd want to know if people want to know the 'real deal' on gnosis, why, Catholics especially, aren't they reading Athenasius, Basil, Clement, Dionysius the Areopagite, Ephrem the Syrian, Eriugena or Eckhart, Gregory of Nyssa, or Nazianzus, (I know, I skipped the 'F'), Hilary of Poitiers, Ignatius, John Damascene or John of the Cross ... Katherine of Siena (I cheated, should be a 'C') ... can't think of an 'L', hang on, Leo the Great! ... Maximus the Confessor (who re-ordered Platonism - my hero!) ...

This part i agree with you on.

 

[Halcyon]

The discussion of apocryphal texts is a complex one.

If you look at the teachings of the gnostics (ie the 2nd century sects, not the 'principle' of gnosis as such) they invariably try and 'hi-jack' Christian teachings and lead them off somewhere else.

Mind if i counter your attack? No, good.

They didn't hijack anything, yes Gnosticism is far older than Christianity and yes they did interpret Christ's teachings in a different way than the orthodox, but Christ's teachings were for all, not just for those of St. Paul's persuasion.

Personally a believe Christ was a Gnostic and taught in a manner that only other Gnostics could really understand, its not our fault if people can't see the real meaning.

Christ taught about love, and a one-on-one relationship with the Father - he told people to call God 'Abba'.

Gnosticism accepts these teachigns, in fact most Gnostic sects were totally pacifist and often vegetarian because they loved other people and forms of life so much. This can't be said for the ancient Church. Gnosticism teaches about the ultimate relationship with God that goes beyond a one-on-one relationship, that is only the beginning.

Gnostics teaching is utterly different - its all about 'knowledge', not love, so gnosis isn't who you are, but what you know ...

Wrong. Gnosis isn't knowledge in the conventional sense, its similar to enlightenment of realisation. Someone who has found gnosis cannot be anything less than the most loving person you will meet.

in gnostic teachings there are inumerable intermediate levels that separate man from God ... syzergies, archons ... and to pass from one to the next you need 'keys' (knowledge again)...

Wrong again. Gnostics taught ALL men contained a spark of the true God - the ultimate gnosis is realisation that there is no separation between man and God. Archons are the equivalent of demons, they are to be avoided. Aeons are aspects of Gods infinite divine mind. Neither of which are stages we need to pass through. The only stages involved are stages of enlightenment, gradually gettign closer to God as ignorance is stripped away.

Scripture, and Christ, taught that the world is essentially 'good' - the gnostic view is the world is essentially evil and the soul is trapped here ...

Not evil but blinding. And not all gnostics taught this concept, various sects also had different interpretations. Essentially Christ taught that the nature of the world imposes an ignorance upon us that we must work hard to overcome. Jesus saw the world was the cause of trouble.
From the Gospel of John 16:33;

I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.

So 'basic' gnostic teaching is anti-Christian at almost every step.

Gnosticism is unlike modern Christianity, and yes i guess it could be seen as anti-christian when speaking of the modern form. But it is not anti-Christ.

A favourite technique of the gnostics was to write a 'gospel' in which Christ is utterly devisive, and imparts a 'secret teaching' to one, but not the others. So in one Judas is the 'specially chosen', in another it's Mary Magdalene, in another its Thomas ...

A different teaching to each apostle. Why? Because each of them are different people at different stages of spiritual understanding, Christ would have been foolish to teach those unready for the truth. He wasn't devisive, he just wasn't stupid.

[/quote]

Another technique was to insist that although they never met Jesus, the gnostic teachers actually understood what Christ was teaching, whilst the poor old disciples were too stupid and hadn't got a clue ... that fact that 'their' Christianity bears a stunning resemblance to Zoroastrianism/Manicheanism and is nothing like the orthodox canon, nor the Old Testament, speaks for itself.

Paul of Tarsus never met Jesus, yet your Church is founded almost entirely on his point of view of Christ's teachings and of how Christianity should be.

Zoroastrianism was the forebear of much of Christian thought and mythology, but it is your Church that actually is more similar to Zoroastrianism than our beliefs. That said, there is nothing wrong with Zoroastrianism.
Manichaenism was founded by Mani centuries after Gnostic thought appeared, and took some of its doctrine from Gnosticism, whats your point?

The fact that you seem to believe the canonical gospels were written by the apostles and that ours were written by frauds tells me a lot.

The most we know is from Irenaeus, who wrote a refutation of everything they taught. Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of St John, and it is likely that Irenaeus was in communication with people who had actually met Jesus personally, or who 'knew someone who knew him' (and I'll admit that allows for a lot of rumour and misinformation)

Exactly why are you making the assumption that because Irenaeus had friends of friends whose fathers might have met Jesus, that the Gnostic teachers were not in a similar position?
I have nothing against Irenaeus per se, he was a member of one sect and so was entitled to debunk the beliefs of his competition, i do not however see why on Earth his opinions are treated as the be all and end all.

But Irenaeus argued that wherever Christianity was taught, the message was the same, in Rome, Alexandria, in Gaul (he was in Lyon) in Antioch ... and yet all those Christians had all got it wrong, and yet wherever gnostics taught, and a 'rule' of gnosticism is that each teacher should make the message his own, and thus no two gnostic teachers taught precisely the same thing, they were all right!

Each man must find truth and wisdom by his own effort, how can we really understand the truth as another man sees it? Just because a belief is more widespread doesn't automatically make it correct.

His last argument was that Christ could not have been much good if he hadn't managed to teach even one of his disciples the right message.

He gave each disciple the information they needed to find gnosis, because as i said above, each disciple was different and so needed to walk their own individual path to understanding.

And remember that it is axiomatic to gnostic teachings that only a very, very few are saved, because the vast majority of humanity do not have a soul...

Totally wrong. Gnosticism teaches ALL men have the divine spark within them.

However it is only the 'pneumatics', the children of Seth, that were/are truly aware of it. Hylics and psychicals can become aware, but first they must break down the barriers of ignorance that they themselves have built.

Lastly, if you don't believe the Christians, read up on the Greek Philosophers. The Stoics especially ripped into the gnostics at every opportunity for what they saw was very bad philosophy - a lack of reason, logic and intellectual rigour - whilst they acknowledged that they might not believe in the Christian God, Christians argued the case perfectly.

Stoicism is very similar to Gnosticism, and Buddhism. I imagine the Stoics would have argued against the Gnostics because they saw their own beliefs mirrored but at the same time different in the Gnostics.
Please cite some references for documents where the stoics argue agains Gnosticism, i'd be interested in what they had to say.

The point is that some gnostics were Christians who tried to express what they thought through what they already knew, others were not Christian at all, but simply wanted to get on the bandwagon (Christianity was spreading like wildfire).

Yes, some Gnostics were already Christian, but who saw the teachings of Christ in a different way to the orthodox. And yes others may not have been Christian but saw truth in Christs teachings. What exactly was your point?

Personally, I am Catholic, but a Christian Neoplatonist, for me Platonic philosophy is far more a 'real gnosis' than the oooh-er mystery stuff the gnostics churn out, but it's tough reading. Gnostics always aimed at popularity, rather than reality.

Again Platonism is similar to Gnosticism, and there is no mystery to the Gnostic teachings - you just need to realise how the ancient Gnostic authors thought to see thye truths in their writings.

And if I were to bang my gong, I'd want to know if people want to know the 'real deal' on gnosis, why, Catholics especially, aren't they reading Athenasius, Basil, Clement, Dionysius the Areopagite, Ephrem the Syrian, Eriugena or Eckhart, Gregory of Nyssa, or Nazianzus, (I know, I skipped the 'F'), Hilary of Poitiers, Ignatius, John Damascene or John of the Cross ... Katherine of Siena (I cheated, should be a 'C') ... can't think of an 'L', hang on, Leo the Great! ... Maximus the Confessor (who re-ordered Platonism - my hero!) ...

Real deal? A bunch of orthodox bishops and commentators, how will they tell me anything about Gnosticism? I'll stick with Valentinus, Herakleon and Sophia thanks.

 

[Tom Davidson]

Gnosticism is far older than Christianity and yes they did interpret Christ's teachings in a different way than the orthodox,

Pricisely my point - the gnostics filtered Christian teaching through the lens of their own understanding, and in so doing rejected those elements which did not fit their preconceptions.

but Christ's teachings were for all, not just for those of St. Paul's persuasion. Personally a believe Christ was a Gnostic and taught in a manner that only other Gnostics could really understand,

Well, I would say that either His teaching was for all, or for gnostics, it can't be both. It seems, in His owns words, that His teaching was for all ... maybe it was the gnostics who missed the point?

The real argument, of course, is that the gnostics say 'we understand what you teach better than you do because you're not a gnostic' which is something of a meaningless argument - it cuts both ways and offers no proof of anything - so it boils down to opinion.

I'll stick with my 'bunch of orthodox bishops and commentators' thanks. I've tried the others, they don't cut it for me.

Thomas

 

[Halcyon]

Pricisely my point - the gnostics filtered Christian teaching through the lens of their own understanding, and in so doing rejected those elements which did not fit their preconceptions.

Yes, they filtered Christian teaching, but not Christ's own teaching. If you'd like to start a debate thread i could give you the Gnostic interpretation of any quote you care to give.

Well, I would say that either His teaching was for all, or for gnostics, it can't be both. It seems, in His owns words, that His teaching was for all ... maybe it was the gnostics who missed the point?

I disagree, some teachings were for all, such as the many moral teachings. Others were targetted specifically at those whose minds were already prepared. Any good teacher does the same.

The real argument, of course, is that the gnostics say 'we understand what you teach better than you do because you're not a gnostic' which is something of a meaningless argument - it cuts both ways and offers no proof of anything - so it boils down to opinion.

That depends which teacher you are referring to here, we believe Christ was Gnostic. If you mean the average preacher nowadays then i agree, we do know the true meanings, but then would i be Gnostic if i didn't believe that?

I'll stick with my 'bunch of orthodox bishops and commentators' thanks. I've tried the others, they don't cut it for me.

[/quote]
Hey, i never meant this as an attack against you personally, i simply responded to what i see as the spreading of false information. You believe whatever makes you truly happy, what else really matters afterall?

 

[Tom Davidson]

Yes, they filtered Christian teaching, but not Christ's own teaching. If you'd like to start a debate thread i could give you the Gnostic interpretation of any quote you care to give.

What about the Creed?

I pose this because the question is not about the veracity of Scripture, so much as the interpretation of texts. The teaching of the Church existed before the Canon of the New Testament, and the Canon was selected in light of the teaching.

Therefore the interpretation of text, as orthodox or otherwise, depends upon the articles of the Creed as arbiter of orthodoxy.

The notion that Christ did not die on the cross, or that Christ is not the Second Person of the Trinity, for example, is refuted by Orthodoxy.

Here is a point:
The fact that Islam denies the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and the Trinity, does not render a Moslem a 'heretic' - a heretic has to stand within the given tradition, not outside it (one might say that the Doctrine of the Incarnation is heresy to a Moslem).

A heretic then is one who claims a tradition, but teaches something other than what orthodoxy holds to be the case. Arius, for example, was a heretic, but not through any intention to subvert the tradition - he could not accept the Incarnation.

Valentinus, for example, was the most famous of the 'Christian gnostics' - he claimed to follow St Paul but introduced a number of Platonic and Greek mystical speculations into his teaching, which were distinctly dualistic and pantheistic.

The argument boils down to Irenaeus' argument - that if the truth was not handed down to the named successors of the apostles, and that they do not have the right to reject that which they see as false, then we have no measure of truth - anyone can claim anything of Christ with no more necessary foundation than their own fancy and opinion.

In my own view careful study of Scripture, and reflection in the Greek philosophical tradition, presents many illogical and insoluble problems in gnostic philosophy, in the same way that Aristotle showed the problems of Platonism. Furthermore the Fathers argued (as does theology today) consistently and cogently that Scripture means what it says, and what that means. All the gnostic texts that I've read either refute some aspect of scripture, or abandon its immediate meaning in favour of some more obscure or occluded interpretation.

If not the Creed, then any verse you like ...

Thomas

 

[Halcyon]

Yes, they filtered Christian teaching, but not Christ's own teaching. If you'd like to start a debate thread i could give you the Gnostic interpretation of any quote you care to give.

What about the Creed?

I pose this because the question is not about the veracity of Scripture, so much as the interpretation of texts. The teaching of the Church existed before the Canon of the New Testament, and the Canon was selected in light of the teaching.

Therefore the interpretation of text, as orthodox or otherwise, depends upon the articles of the Creed as arbiter of orthodoxy.

The notion that Christ did not die on the cross, or that Christ is not the Second Person of the Trinity, for example, is refuted by Orthodoxy.

Here is a point:
The fact that Islam denies the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and the Trinity, does not render a Moslem a 'heretic' - a heretic has to stand within the given tradition, not outside it (one might say that the Doctrine of the Incarnation is heresy to a Moslem).

A heretic then is one who claims a tradition, but teaches something other than what orthodoxy holds to be the case. Arius, for example, was a heretic, but not through any intention to subvert the tradition - he could not accept the Incarnation.

Valentinus, for example, was the most famous of the 'Christian gnostics' - he claimed to follow St Paul but introduced a number of Platonic and Greek mystical speculations into his teaching, which were distinctly dualistic and pantheistic.

The argument boils down to Irenaeus' argument - that if the truth was not handed down to the named successors of the apostles, and that they do not have the right to reject that which they see as false, then we have no measure of truth - anyone can claim anything of Christ with no more necessary foundation than their own fancy and opinion.

In my own view careful study of Scripture, and reflection in the Greek philosophical tradition, presents many illogical and insoluble problems in gnostic philosophy, in the same way that Aristotle showed the problems of Platonism. Furthermore the Fathers argued (as does theology today) consistently and cogently that Scripture means what it says, and what that means. All the gnostic texts that I've read either refute some aspect of scripture, or abandon its immediate meaning in favour of some more obscure or occluded interpretation.

If not the Creed, then any verse you like ...

Thomas

You don't get it.
I'm not saying that its not a matter of interpretation, its entirely interpretation.

I don't care what the creed says, because it is not my creed. Its the creed of your church, your sect. One sect among many.

Personally i don't like St. Paul or agree with his interpretations, Valentinus did and that was his decision because he saw truth there that i do not.
But, unlike the various forms of Catholocism, Gnostics aren't bound by doctrine or dogma. You can see heresy if you want, but that is only in your mind - not ours.

Also;

...anyone can claim anything of Christ with no more necessary foundation than their own fancy and opinion.

You do realise your creed was written by men don't you? The trinity, incarnation etc were the "fancy and opinion" of the early(ish) members of your church.

p.s. if you'd like to use the quote boxes like i did above, if you click on the button up top that looks like a square speech bubble it'll give you the script for quoting, you just need to copy and paste the text you'd like to quote in between the two sets of closed brakets.
Also, if you want to quote a whole post then you can click the quote button in the bottom right of the persons post box and that'll open up a new reply window for you.

 

[lunamoth]

Ummm, why do gnostics bother to write anything down? :devil: :162:

lunamoth

 

[Buttons*]

Ummm, why do gnostics bother to write anything down? :devil: :162:

lunamoth

....

 

[Tom Davidson]

Then what is the mean by which we determine an interpretation true or false?

Thomas

 

[Halcyon]

Then what is the mean by which we determine an interpretation true or false?

Your own judgement.

What i call into question is the wisdom of relying entirely on the views of the people at Nicene etc in determining your own beliefs.

 

[Tom Davidson]

Your own judgement.
This is faith - you have faith in your own judgement. I have faith in mine.

What I call into question is the wisdom of relying entirely on the views of the people at Nicene etc in determining your own beliefs.
Why? Gnostics rely entirely on the view of others in determining their own beliefs.

Thomas

 

[Halcyon]

This is faith - you have faith in your own judgement. I have faith in mine.

There's faith and then there's blind faith.
Plus this isn't even about that, i already said;

Hey, i never meant this as an attack against you personally, i simply responded to what i see as the spreading of false information. You believe whatever makes you truly happy, what else really matters afterall?

Why? Gnostics rely entirely on the view of others in determining their own beliefs.

I'm sorry Tom, this is simply not true.
Our beliefs are tools, versitile tools that can change and adapt. They are there only to help us along the path to understanding.

I know you believe you understand what Gnosticism and Gnostics are about from the writings of your church fathers, but understand this - they were biased, and on the attack. You cannot trust their opinion on us anymore than you can trust an anti-mormon site to be accurate about Mormonism.

 

[ΩRôghênΩ]

irinaus was a strange person

 

[Booko]

irinaus was a strange person

How so?