Christ necessary for gnostics?

[theosis]

The concept of gnosis existed before Jesus was born. Besides appreciating him as someone who has attained gnosis (a gnostic saint, if you will), why is he necessary in the gnostic framework?

Gnosticism is all about becoming one with the One (however you might define It). No intermediaries needed. In fact, intermediaries are generally something that gets in your way on your spiritual journey -- I'm talking about the Archons.
Jesus might have been a bodhisattva of sorts, but if you believe that each of us contains a spark of the divine, he need not be uniquely divine.

I know some Christians find gnosticism interesting. To them, it's some kind of syncretism of Christianity and Buddhism. But gnostic Christianity is only halfway there. To truly pursue gnosis, you must divorce yourself from venerated divinities - including Jesus.

 

[Bunny]

The concept of gnosis existed before Jesus was born. Besides appreciating him as someone who has attained gnosis (a gnostic saint, if you will), why is he necessary in the gnostic framework?

I wouldn't say anything is absolutely necessary in gnosticism. No orthodoxy in heterodoxy, etc., etc.

Gnosticism is all about becoming one with the One (however you might define It). No intermediaries needed. In fact, intermediaries are generally something that gets in your way on your spiritual journey -- I'm talking about the Archons.

See above, re: orthodoxy in heterodoxy.

Jesus might have been a bodhisattva of sorts, but if you believe that each of us contains a spark of the divine, he need not be uniquely divine.

Of course not. I believe that the spirit of Christ has inhabited many earthly bodies. He just happened to go by the name of Jesus in the 1st century CE.

I know some Christians find gnosticism interesting. To them, it's some kind of syncretism of Christianity and Buddhism. But gnostic Christianity is only halfway there. To truly pursue gnosis, you must divorce yourself from venerated divinities - including Jesus.

I see gnostic thought as much more related to certain schools of Hinduism than Buddhism, personally. There seem to be many facets (the aeons, including Jesus) of the Supreme, and the goal of returning to the Source (for me) seems to be more along the lines of Vishishtadvaita than pure Advaita. Remember, many of the early gnostic schools were very much dualist. I pretty much hedge my bets with qualified monism because it makes the most sense to me.

If you view gnosis through a more Buddhist lens, however, it makes sense that you would see Jesus and the aeons (or divinities in general) the way you do. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. On the other hand, I don't think anyone can really make any sort of sweeping generalization about what gnosis is all about. We're all just making shots in the dark, for the most part.

 

[nazz]

Well the ancient Gnostics viewed Christ as the one who brought gnosis of the true God to the world. I happen to agree with them. This is not to say that gnosis in some form was not in existence before as a shadow of what was to come. Just my own personal view.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Well no. Gnosticism is a reform movement that arose from the incorporation of the Hellenic Mystery religions meshing with Christianity. In reality true Gnosticism has nothing to do with Christianity and I tie it in more with the thought of the Olympians. As they are the perfect examples of what true Gnosticism is.

Gnosticism is not a religion of prophecy but a theology of wisdom. Dogma and creed have no place in it

 

[theosis]

Well no. Gnosticism is a reform movement that arose from the incorporation of the Hellenic Mystery religions meshing with Christianity.

The major gnostic sects were Christian but gnosticism predates Christianity.

 

[Sha'irullah]

The major gnostic sects were Christian but gnosticism predates Christianity.

My point exactly. Gnosticism is just a reemergence of old practices meshed into Christianity. Syncretism has occurred a lot through history. Personally I believe the further you remove Gnosticism away from Christianity or any form of religious dogma the purer the form

 

[nazz]

How are you defining "Christianity"? As only the orthodox form? Gnosticism was a valid form of Christian expression even if it was also expressed in other non-Christian forms. Both the Jewish and Christian expressions borrowed heavily from Hellenistic philosophy but also reinterpreted that material in new ways.

 

[theosis]

How are you defining "Christianity"? As only the orthodox form? Gnosticism was a valid form of Christian expression even if it was also expressed in other non-Christian forms. Both the Jewish and Christian expressions borrowed heavily from Hellenistic philosophy but also reinterpreted that material in new ways.

My question is mainly directed at Christian gnostics; I am curious where Jesus fits into their framework. I am familiar with the texts of the ancient Christian gnostics but I think that if we take gnosticism to its philosophical conclusion his stature is heavily diminished.

 

[Sha'irullah]

My question is mainly directed at Christian gnostics; I am curious where Jesus fits into their framework. I am familiar with the texts of the ancient Christian gnostics but I think that if we take gnosticism to its philosophical conclusion his stature is heavily diminished.

Personally I do not believe Jesus fits into the framework all so much. Hellenic Neo-Paganism does :yes:

 

[theosis]

Personally I do not believe Jesus fits into the framework all so much. Hellenic Neo-Paganism does :yes:

Do you mean neo-Platonism? Not sure how Apollo or Zeus would fit better

 

[Sha'irullah]

Do you mean neo-Platonism? Not sure how Apollo or Zeus would fit better

Not referring to Plato in the slightest. I am referring to Hellenic mythology and their usage of the gods as metaphorical embodiments of desired attributes. Deists centuries ago called god Zeus or Apollo because of the desired effect for example.

 

[theosis]

Not referring to Plato in the slightest. I am referring to Hellenic mythology and their usage of the gods as metaphorical embodiments of desired attributes. Deists centuries ago called god Zeus or Apollo because of the desired effect for example.

Interesting. Generally, neo-Platonism is compared to gnosticism and seen as the potential root of the gnostic system. The demiurge is a neo-Platonic construct, for example.

 

[biased]

Not referring to Plato in the slightest. I am referring to Hellenic mythology and their usage of the gods as metaphorical embodiments of desired attributes. Deists centuries ago called god Zeus or Apollo because of the desired effect for example.

Neo-Platonists attribute their teachings to Plotinus much moreso than Plato but Plotinus further elucidated Plato's ideas.

 

[ELoWolfe]

But it has to be framed in a way that people would understand. If I tell a story but you don't know certain words, you're less likely to find the meaning of the story.

Try explaining sin, atonement and dualism to the average "east," while explaining dharma, moska and karma to the average "west." It can be done, but it won't be easy.

I don't know the exact quote, but the idea of the priest and the mystic. The priests will always argue, but the mystics will nod and understand. I see gnosis in Hellenism, sure, but I experience it with a Christian background. And I can promise it is just as "pure."

 

[biased]

Christ is not necessary but coming from a western Christian (Catholic) background following his teachings is much more receptive to my natural state of mind or the way I've been conditioned than some of the more obscure Bodhisattvas and gnostic sages. I find reading Christian mystics to be quite palpable in this same sense.

Ultimately, any messenger who points the way can be substituted but being from the West like I suspect most of us here are we find a natural affinity for Jesus Christ.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Neo-Platonists attribute their teachings to Plotinus much moreso than Plato but Plotinus further elucidated Plato's ideas.

I am quite familiar with Platonism kiddo :sarcastic. It doe snot change the fact that it is not relevant to the conversation

 

[Sha'irullah]

Interesting. Generally, neo-Platonism is compared to gnosticism and seen as the potential root of the gnostic system. The demiurge is a neo-Platonic construct, for example.

I am know this but it is not a theological system that incorporates a deity. I am merely focusing on who or what would be deified by a Gnostic

 

[biased]

Interesting. Generally, neo-Platonism is compared to gnosticism and seen as the potential root of the gnostic system. The demiurge is a neo-Platonic construct, for example.

Plotinus was pretty angry about the Gnostics bastardizing his emenation theology. He wrote some polemics against it.

It doe snot change the fact that it is not relevant to the conversation

It seemed as though you were equating Plato with Neo-Platonism which is inaccurate hence why I felt a need to clarify. I simply didn't want people to become misinformed...

 

[Shermana]

The concept of gnosis existed before Jesus was born. Besides appreciating him as someone who has attained gnosis (a gnostic saint, if you will), why is he necessary in the gnostic framework?

Gnosticism is all about becoming one with the One (however you might define It). No intermediaries needed. In fact, intermediaries are generally something that gets in your way on your spiritual journey -- I'm talking about the Archons.
Jesus might have been a bodhisattva of sorts, but if you believe that each of us contains a spark of the divine, he need not be uniquely divine.

I know some Christians find gnosticism interesting. To them, it's some kind of syncretism of Christianity and Buddhism. But gnostic Christianity is only halfway there. To truly pursue gnosis, you must divorce yourself from venerated divinities - including Jesus.

So what is Gnosis in the first place? What was this concept before Christ? What was the Jewish idea of Gnosticism, since Gnosticism was originally a Jewish movement? What "Gnosis" did "Jacob the Gnostic" (James the Just as he's called in the Talmud) achieve? What exactly is it one is reaching for? What does it mean to be "One with THE one" exactly? Whose version of how to achieve this "oneness" is correct? Which sect? Which text contains/contained the right mysteries/secrets to be decoded? How does one achieve the intended meaning? How do we free ourselves from the reign of the dark archons? What shall do we with all the Gnostic texts that imply Jesus held the key to the secrets to unlocking all these questions? Does achieving Gnosis involve distancing oneself from THE God as well?

Or does it involve achieving oneness through obeying His will and avoiding impurity and spiritual contamination like some of the most early Gnostics did?

 

[Sha'irullah]

It seemed as though you were equating Plato with Neo-Platonism which is inaccurate hence why I felt a need to clarify. I simply didn't want people to become misinformed...

?? I was disregarding Plato altogether. I never even mentioned it