Gnostic & Christian Beginnings

[James the Persian]

Nice Article greatc,

I think that the confusion of some about Constantine is that he was instrumental in forming the church of Rome and didn't dictate the selection of scriptures. He only decreed that the Bishops get their act together and come up with a canon of sorts. How could this church claim authority if it didn't have the matter all settled? This is where the selection is debateable because they of course wanted to please the Emperor. The most problematic question is why, almost a full 300 years after Jesus, was there not an authoritative canon already in existence? Why did it take Constantine's participation to make this happen?

Neither St. Constantine nor the Council of Nicea had any role in determining the canon of Scripture at all. The first complete canon that we would recognise was not listed until the end of the fourth century, first as the personal opinion of St Athanasios and then as the decision of the (local) Council of Hippo. None of the Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church were responsible for setting the canon, despite the myths that keep being brought up on this forum. There also was never one single fixed canon at all, there being at least three variant canons in the Church prior to Chalcedon - the Greek, Latin and Ethiopian canons.

James

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Neither St. Constantine nor the Council of Nicea had any role in determining the canon of Scripture at all. The first complete canon that we would recognise was not listed until the end of the fourth century, first as the personal opinion of St Athanasios and then as the decision of the (local) Council of Hippo. None of the Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church were responsible for setting the canon, despite the myths that keep being brought up on this forum. There also was never one single fixed canon at all, there being at least three variant canons in the Church prior to Chalcedon - the Greek, Latin and Ethiopian canons.

James

Can you give me some scholarly references to back up your claim of none of these things happens. Canon was not decided and if not what was the purpose of the council then if not to decide what the faith of the people will be and establish it into law. Because there was according to historical documents a debate betwwen groups if you like I will embelish on it further. I am going to post it in Muhammed pbuh in the Bible post but it will be later. Read my post in there please give me your input remember these statements are taken from acclaimed scholars and experts in religion.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Mujuhid,

I think refreshing your memory would be a very good idea, because you are obviously mixed up. Meanwhile, keep in mind that I do not subscribe to many of the tenets of mainstream Christianity myself. You definitely don't need to convince me that something went wrong with Jesus Christ's Church. I already know that.

Kathryn

I will clarify it all in another post when I will list the history of The council of Nicea. So if you do not ascribe to the many tenets of Christianity what religion are you, agnostic? I am not insinuating because I do not know but to clarify for me tell me what your beliefs are and what things in Christianity you do not believe in or subscibe to. I am not trying to convince anyone I am just trying to show those than obviously yourself that something significant happened at the Council of Nicea. And since you know that you and I both are aware. But please go to my post in Muhammed pbuh in the bible where I ask about Horus and other known pagan gods it is towards the end of the post and give me your thoughts and this is what I have been told by some recognized scholars. Thank you for your time and input

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Actually the disappearance of Gnostic line of Christianity is the work of the early "Catholic" Christians led by Constantine. Without Constantine, the Christians today may be practicing comletely different dogma. During those early days, Christians persecuting Christians was more serious than non-Christians persecuting Christians.

Did these things procede from the Council of Nicea and others.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

Nice Article greatc,

I think that the confusion of some about Constantine is that he was instrumental in forming the church of Rome and didn't dictate the selection of scriptures. He only decreed that the Bishops get their act together and come up with a canon of sorts. How could this church claim authority if it didn't have the matter all settled? This is where the selection is debateable because they of course wanted to please the Emperor. The most problematic question is why, almost a full 300 years after Jesus, was there not an authoritative canon already in existence? Why did it take Constantine's participation to make this happen?

According to some historians there were two major religious groups. The Unitarians who believed God was one and Jesus a prophet and the Students from the original teachings of Paul. Constantine was the king and had to decide which group his government would accept and put it into the law of the land that this is how things were going to be. That is why many Christians after these councils were killed and tortured because of the edicts passed from these Religious councils.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It occurs to me that we may be using the term "Canon" differently. What do you mean by it?

 

[Halcyon]

I disagree. By the middle of the second century, there were three major movements within Christianity: Jewish Christianity, Hellenistic (or Gentile Christianity) and Gnosticism. These three were not as clearly defined as it might seem. There was actually a rather large spectrum of belief crossing over these three main categories and a certain amount of overlapping.

As has already been mentioned, the Greek word “gnosis” means “knowledge.” The Gnostics believed they were saved by the knowledge of God, in other words, that knowledge itself was salvation. Gnostic thought incorporated everything from oriental mythologies to astrological doctrines to Jewish tradition to Christian eschatology to Platonic terminology. The Gnostic movement came into existence during the Apostolic period, but never became particularly strong until much later. We can credit the Apostles with keeping their heresies from taking hold. However (according to Eusebius), Gnosticism began to flourish during the first few centuries after the apostolic period.

All you say is true (apart form the bit about the apostles having any involvement in the suppression of Gnosticism - Paul maybe, but not the originals, in fact i'd go as far to say that the first followers of Jesus were Gnostic, but that's another argument ).

I think maybe you misunderstood my point though. I wasn't saying that there wasn't a Christian Gnostic movement, what i was saying was that Gnosticism was not confined to Christianity alone, it is a set of theological concepts that predated Chritianity and that can be incorporated into pretty much any belief system.
It survives to this day with the Mandeans and some remaining Cathar communities i believe, it resurfaced in the philosophies of Carl Jung, Gnosticism had a far greater spread than Christianity alone.

 

[ChrisP]

That's the one i was thinking of, the Council of Trent 1546, god bless wikipedia, thanks for the link Jayhawker.

Well, you're talking about the demiurge theory which was popular amoung most Gnostic sects. They varied in their view of Yahweh as the demiurge from him being pure evil, to just a bit arrogant and stupid.

The BIG difference between Christian Gnostics and Pauline (modern) Christians is the role of a church. Gnostics didn't need a church as they believed God could be sought via contemplation and meditation, their goal was Gnosis (knowledge) of the true nature of God.
The early church obviously didn't like this idea as it would essentially render them useless, no need for middle men like priests, bishops and a pope if every commoner on the street can find God on their own! This is probably the main reason why the gospel of thomas was not included, as it contained sayings of Jesus such as "Split wood, I am there. Lift up a rock, you will find me there." and "If your leaders say to you 'Look! The Kingdom is in the heavens!" Then the birds will be there before you are. If they say that the Kingdom is in the sea, then the fish will be there before you are. Rather, the Kingdom is within you and it is outside of you". Nothing about, 'go to church to find me (god)'.

Plus, like you say they did have a different view of Jesus, most didn't believe him to be the son of God (as they believed all people are the direct children of God, each containing a divine spark) - again they ranged in their views of Jesus, from seeing him as a man who had reached Gnosis, to the literal word of God (logos) who only appeared to take on human form as the man Jesus.

I think it important to mention that Gnosticism is/was not a Christian sect nor heresy. Gnosticism is a set of theological concepts which boil down to 1. The material world being irrelevant to spiritual evolution and the gaining of Gnosis, and 2. God can be found within each of us, we just need to look. This can be incorporated into any set of beliefs, and it was. There were Pagan, Hermetic, Jewish, Islamic, Cathar and Christian Gnostics as well as other faiths built on the Gnostic principles including Manichaeism and the Mandeans.

What can I say.... "WOW!!!"

This is the concept I've been turning over in my head for years! Are there any indepth resources I can't find with Google that you'd reccomend?

Much appreciated.

 

[Quiddity]

That's the one i was thinking of, the Council of Trent 1546, god bless wikipedia, thanks for the link Jayhawker.

Well, you're talking about the demiurge theory which was popular amoung most Gnostic sects. They varied in their view of Yahweh as the demiurge from him being pure evil, to just a bit arrogant and stupid.

The BIG difference between Christian Gnostics and Pauline (modern) Christians is the role of a church. Gnostics didn't need a church as they believed God could be sought via contemplation and meditation, their goal was Gnosis (knowledge) of the true nature of God.
The early church obviously didn't like this idea as it would essentially render them useless, no need for middle men like priests, bishops and a pope if every commoner on the street can find God on their own! This is probably the main reason why the gospel of thomas was not included, as it contained sayings of Jesus such as "Split wood, I am there. Lift up a rock, you will find me there." and "If your leaders say to you 'Look! The Kingdom is in the heavens!" Then the birds will be there before you are. If they say that the Kingdom is in the sea, then the fish will be there before you are. Rather, the Kingdom is within you and it is outside of you". Nothing about, 'go to church to find me (god)'.

Plus, like you say they did have a different view of Jesus, most didn't believe him to be the son of God (as they believed all people are the direct children of God, each containing a divine spark) - again they ranged in their views of Jesus, from seeing him as a man who had reached Gnosis, to the literal word of God (logos) who only appeared to take on human form as the man Jesus.

I think it important to mention that Gnosticism is/was not a Christian sect nor heresy. Gnosticism is a set of theological concepts which boil down to 1. The material world being irrelevant to spiritual evolution and the gaining of Gnosis, and 2. God can be found within each of us, we just need to look. This can be incorporated into any set of beliefs, and it was. There were Pagan, Hermetic, Jewish, Islamic, Cathar and Christian Gnostics as well as other faiths built on the Gnostic principles including Manichaeism and the Mandeans.

To say you don't need the Church already puts you in a different camp, not just a different world view.

~Victor

 

[ChrisP]

To say you don't need the Church already puts you in a different camp, not just a different world view.

~Victor

I agree. The bible itself says that Christians should congregate, but the church is it's members not an organisation. *looks for scripture*

 

[Quiddity]

I agree. The bible itself says that Christians should congregate, but the church is it's members not an organisation. *looks for scripture*

Lets agree to disagree. The Bible speaks of the Church as a body.

~Victor

 

[ChrisP]

Acts 13:1 - Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyre'ne, Man'a-en a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

Acts 14:23 - And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.

Acts 15:22 - Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsab'bas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren,

1 Timothy 3 deals with selecting elders from within the congregation

 

[ChrisP]

Lets agree to disagree. The Bible speaks of the Church as a body.

~Victor

Yeah I've spent a lot of time arguing with R. Catholics before and we're both very set in our ways

 

[Katzpur]

I will clarify it all in another post when I will list the history of The council of Nicea. So if you do not ascribe to the many tenets of Christianity what religion are you, agnostic? I am not insinuating because I do not know but to clarify for me tell me what your beliefs are and what things in Christianity you do not believe in or subscibe to. I am not trying to convince anyone I am just trying to show those than obviously yourself that something significant happened at the Council of Nicea. And since you know that you and I both are aware. But please go to my post in Muhammed pbuh in the bible where I ask about Horus and other known pagan gods it is towards the end of the post and give me your thoughts and this is what I have been told by some recognized scholars. Thank you for your time and input

Mujadid,

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is a Christian denomination, but because our beliefs are quite different from those of mainstream (i.e. "orthodox," "historical") Christianity, many Christians do not consider us to be Christian at all. We believe that a universal apostasy took place shortly after the deaths of Christ's Apostles and that many of the doctrines He taught were corrupted over time. For example, we don't accept any of the Creeds (Nicene, Athanasian, etc.). We don't believe in the Trinity. We believe in modern-day prophets and in extra-Biblical writings. I won't go any further into our differences, since that would be off the topic of this thread. If you are curious about any of our beliefs, you can ask on the Latter-day Saints forum. (You'd start out on the Abrahamic beliefs forum, go from there to Christianity, from there to Restorationist and from there to Latter-day Saint.)

I'll check out the post you mentioned, but it probably won't be until tomorrow.

Kathryn

 

[greatcalgarian]

Did these things procede from the Council of Nicea and others.

While the historical and theological details are far too complex for proper explication here, the tide of history can be said to have turned against Gnosticism in the middle of the second century. No Gnostic after Valentinus would ever come so near prominence in the greater Church. Gnosticism's secret knowledge, its continuing revelations and production of new scripture, its ascetheticism and paradoxically contrasting libertine postures, were met with increasing suspicion. By A.D. 180, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, was publishing his attacks on Gnosticism as heresy, a work to be continued with increasing vehemence by the orthodox church Fathers throughout the next century.

The orthodox catholic church was deeply and profoundly influenced by the struggle against Gnosticism in the second and third centuries. Formulations of many central traditions in orthodox theology came as reflections and shadows of this confrontation with the Gnosis.5 But by the end of the fourth century the struggle with the classical Gnosticism represented in the Nag Hammadi texts was essentially over; the evolving orthodox ecclesia had added the force of political correctness to dogmatic denunciation, and with this sword so-called "heresy" was painfully cut from the Christian body. Gnosticism, which had perhaps already passed its prime, was eradicated, its remaining teachers murdered or driven into exile, and its sacred books destroyed. All that remained for scholars seeking to understand Gnosticism in later centuries were the denunciations and fragments preserved in the patristic heresiologies -- or so it seem, until until a day in 1945....
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlintro.html

The struggle between Gnostic Christians and current Christians started right after the early Church Fathers (those that has direct contact learning from the early 12 Apostle plus the "new intruder" Paul, remember all the letters Paul wrote in order to make peace or wrestled the leadership) generation passed away. However, it was after Constantine was converted, that the authority of Rome was utilized to wipe out Gnostic branch of Christians. If the current Catholic at Rome is as powerfully politically as during the 4th century during the birth of Protestant Christianity, we will only have Catholic Christians now, and there will be no Jehovah, no LSD, etc.

 

[Katzpur]

If the current Catholic at Rome is as powerfully politically as during the 4th century during the birth of Protestant Christianity, we will only have Catholic Christians now, and there will be no Jehovah, no LSD, etc.

Right! And no LDS either! But still a whole bunch of ecstasy.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Neither St. Constantine nor the Council of Nicea had any role in determining the canon of Scripture at all. The first complete canon that we would recognise was not listed until the end of the fourth century, first as the personal opinion of St Athanasios and then as the decision of the (local) Council of Hippo. None of the Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church were responsible for setting the canon, despite the myths that keep being brought up on this forum. There also was never one single fixed canon at all, there being at least three variant canons in the Church prior to Chalcedon - the Greek, Latin and Ethiopian canons.

James

Hi Iacob, Thanks for your knowledeable description.

I kind of said the same thing. I'll have to look up the reference, but it has been stated that Constantine had 50 Bibles printed (or written). So while there was no official canon decreed by Constantine, he did set things in motion. That is what I thought I was saying. What I think you are professing is that the Council of Nicea was not as far reaching as it has been portrayed. This makes sense to me because it was only the beginning. You have put some pieces in their place for me here.


Hi Katz,

One little thing, Gnosticism is commonly portrayed as the inner path to knowledge and God. I think that this is a true statement.

 

[James the Persian]

According to some historians there were two major religious groups. The Unitarians who believed God was one and Jesus a prophet and the Students from the original teachings of Paul. Constantine was the king and had to decide which group his government would accept and put it into the law of the land that this is how things were going to be. That is why many Christians after these councils were killed and tortured because of the edicts passed from these Religious councils.

The two factions at Nicea were the Trinitarians and the Arians. Despite a lot of people's misconceptions as to what separated the two groups, neither of them believed that Christ was just a prophet. The Trinitarians believed that Christ was God the Son, consubstantial with the Father and one Hypostasis of the Trinity. The Arians believed that Christ was a lesser god created by God before all creation - both sides agreed that Christ was God (or a god) Incarnate, they just didn't agree on the nature of the Word and His relationship to the Father.
The Arians (lead by Arius, from whom they take their name) were a new movement that was making waves in the Church and, because St. Constantine wanted to encourage a united Church, he called the Council of Nicea to settle on which of the two positions were correct. He chaired the council but did not decide doctrine and the vast majority of the bishops and others present condemned Arius as a heretic. They did not consider the canon of Scripture at all (though Constantine did subsequently make copies of the agreed Scriptures of the time for dissemination through the Empire, this was a separate event not connected directly with council). At the time of Nicea there were still disagreements as to the New Testament canon, with some favouring the inclusion of subsequently rejected texts such as the Shepherd of Hermas and others rejecting texts later accepted as cannonical, such as Revelations and Hebrews. Hope that helps.

James

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

The struggle between Gnostic Christians and current Christians started right after the early Church Fathers (those that has direct contact learning from the early 12 Apostle plus the "new intruder" Paul, remember all the letters Paul wrote in order to make peace or wrestled the leadership) generation passed away. However, it was after Constantine was converted, that the authority of Rome was utilized to wipe out Gnostic branch of Christians. If the current Catholic at Rome is as powerfully politically as during the 4th century during the birth of Protestant Christianity, we will only have Catholic Christians now, and there will be no Jehovah, no LSD, etc.

I am goin to start a post here in a couple of days maybe tomorrow or today depending on time about this particular subject. Because many scholars belief that Constantine directly incorporated his pagan beliefs into Christianity that is why the story of Jesus is the same as many other ancient sun Gods. Like Baal, Mithras, Krshna, Osiris, Horus, Thor, Buddha, etc. Constantine worshipped Mithras or Sol in Victus I believe and he directly incorporated this pagan belief system into Christianity with the Council of Nicea.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

The two factions at Nicea were the Trinitarians and the Arians. Despite a lot of people's misconceptions as to what separated the two groups, neither of them believed that Christ was just a prophet. The Trinitarians believed that Christ was God the Son, consubstantial with the Father and one Hypostasis of the Trinity. The Arians believed that Christ was a lesser god created by God before all creation - both sides agreed that Christ was God (or a god) Incarnate, they just didn't agree on the nature of the Word and His relationship to the Father.
The Arians (lead by Arius, from whom they take their name) were a new movement that was making waves in the Church and, because St. Constantine wanted to encourage a united Church, he called the Council of Nicea to settle on which of the two positions were correct. He chaired the council but did not decide doctrine and the vast majority of the bishops and others present condemned Arius as a heretic. They did not consider the canon of Scripture at all (though Constantine did subsequently make copies of the agreed Scriptures of the time for dissemination through the Empire, this was a separate event not connected directly with council). At the time of Nicea there were still disagreements as to the New Testament canon, with some favouring the inclusion of subsequently rejected texts such as the Shepherd of Hermas and others rejecting texts later accepted as cannonical, such as Revelations and Hebrews. Hope that helps.

James

It does however according to some scholars Arius did not belief Christ to be a lesser God because many of his teaching were based off some of the commandments given in the shepard hermes, the Gospel of Barnabus and others. I am going to list all this in a post here soon and I would love to hear your comments and questions concerning it I will also list the books of reference so you can read them yourself if you like. So we will save this for my upcoming post for I do not want to miss any of your input. No worries.