Gnosticism Q&A

[Halcyon]

This is an open invitation to anyone who wants to know anything about Gnosticism to post their question here, hopefully then Buttons*, Simon or myself will be able to answer those questions to your satisfaction (although it'll undoubtedly take some inter-gnostic discussion) - eventually i'd like to re-write this discussion thread into a "Gnosticism FAQ" that could be made a sticky thread at the top of the forum.

Yeah, so any questions concerning Gnostic belief ancient or modern; Gnostic opinion on other faiths; Gnostic leaders and evangelists; different Gnostic sects or Gnostic-like religions, or anything else that pops into your mind are all welcome.
Don't be shy about asking what you think might be silly or offensive questions - these are the core of any good FAQ.

 

[Katzpur]

Maybe you could begin by explaining what Gnosticism is in the first place. I know I'm very unclear on the subject. Is there a distinction between Gnosticism in general and Gnostic Christianity?

 

[lunamoth]

A Gnostic I converse with on another forum, and someone I have a great deal of respect for due to the depth of research he's done in Christian history, has said something to the effect that Gnostics know that the Gospels/Bible is a metaphorical myth, and while it points to "the truth" it was never meant to be taken literally. This is supposedly in contrast to orthodoxy, which about two centuries after Christ started to distinguish their mystery religion from others that coexisted by insisting that the Gospel story is literal historical truth.

Is this a POV you would agree with, or that is held by most Christian Gnostics?

 

[Buttons*]

i agree with that

Gnosticism in general, though, encompases many different writings from many different points of inspiration from mystics of that time. Concerning texts, there are Islamic Gnostics, Jewish Gnostics, Manchean Gnostics (i think...), Christian Gnostics... and then there are just Gnostics. It's just a preference on which texts you identify with mostly. If you feel that you identify with them all, you are probably just Gnostic.

....and if I'm wrong I'm sure Paul will correct me

 

[Halcyon]

i agree with that

Gnosticism in general, though, encompases many different writings from many different points of inspiration from mystics of that time. Concerning texts, there are Islamic Gnostics, Jewish Gnostics, Manchean Gnostics (i think...), Christian Gnostics... and then there are just Gnostics. It's just a preference on which texts you identify with mostly. If you feel that you identify with them all, you are probably just Gnostic.

....and if I'm wrong I'm sure Paul will correct me

No, that's what i would have said.

Maybe you could begin by explaining what Gnosticism is in the first place. I know I'm very unclear on the subject. Is there a distinction between Gnosticism in general and Gnostic Christianity?

To expand on what Buttons* and lunamoth have already said;

Gnosticism is a very ancient form of spiritual understanding (it pre-dates Christianity at least). It appears to be able to spontaneously develop in any culture, like Ash said we see it in all three Abrahamic religions plus Taoism and Buddhism can be seen as eastern mirrors of western Gnostic thought.
We have ancient Gnostics from pre-Christian times called the Sethians and Barbelites - these transformed in the 1st century to become the Valentinians, the Basilideans and many others. Once they were suppressed, Orthodox Christianity became the dominant form of Chriatian faith.
In the middle ages Gnosticism spontaneously reappeared, seemingly without any connection to the ancient systems - these included the likes of the Bogomils and the more famous Cathars. These again were wiped out with violent suppression.

The problem with Gnosticism is that Gnostic religions tend to be extremely pacifist by nature. This means that, although they were often very popular and spread quickly and easily, they were also easily eradicated by more violent religions. This is why Gnosticism of any form did not survive to modern times.

Belief-wise Gnosticism is really quite simple;

• God is infinite and essentially unknowable to the limited human mind.
• The material world is not as real as the spirtual world, our spirit is trapped and blinded by the material. (See The Matrix for a good example of the "illusion of the world".)
• Through personal spiritual effort we can re-gain the knowledge of our place within God (gnosis) and free ourselves of material illusion.

The distinction between the general Gnosticism described above and Christian Gnosticism is only that Christian Gnosticism is Gnosticism understood from the Christian perspective, using Christian language, Christian personalities etc (although adherants like myself would argue that Jesus himself was Gnostic, and thus original Christianity was Gnostic).

The wiki article on Gnosticism has undergone a recent re-write and is an exeptional, if long, read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

 

[michel]

I was interested to see where the word 'Gnostic' comes from;
c.1585, from L.L. gnosticus, from Late Gk. gnostikos, noun use of adj. gnostikos "knowing, able to discern," from gnostos "knowable," from gignoskein "to learn, to come to know" (see know). Applied to various early Christian sects that claimed direct personal knowledge beyond the Gospel or the Church hierarchy. The adj. meaning "relating to knowledge" (with lower-case g-) is from 1656. (from the etymology on line dictionary)
Really all the name seems to 'claim' is to have 'more knowledge than others'; I dare say there are plenty of members here who could 'wear that hat'.

 

[lunamoth]

The distinction between the general Gnosticism described above and Christian Gnosticism is only that Christian Gnosticism is Gnosticism understood from the Christian perspective, using Christian language, Christian personalities etc (although adherants like myself would argue that Jesus himself was Gnostic, and thus original Christianity was Gnostic).

So do you accept (or know??) that Jesus was a historically real person?

Thank you for the replies.

luna

PS, I hope you don't mind but I am going to copy part of your reply to another forum (Comparative Religion) where my other online Gnostic friend posts.

 

[Halcyon]

Really all the name seems to 'claim' is to have 'more knowledge than others'; I dare say there are plenty of members here who could 'wear that hat'.

Hmmm, that's a misunderstanding. Gnosis isn't knowledge in the common usage of the word - it is enlightenment.

Ancient heresiologists like Irenaeus made a similar error in assuming that Gnostics claimed knowledge of God, and that they were somehow elect and superior to other Christians. This is false.

In reality Gnosticism taught/teaches paths to finding Gnosis, not Gnosis itself as Gnosis cannot be expressed in words, its intuitive knowledge, ineffable.
Although some people may have claimed Gnosis, like some claim to be Buddhas, most Gnostics simply followed the path.

So do you accept (or know??) that Jesus was a historically real person?

No-one knows. I personally believe he was an historic person, however his existance is not essential to my beliefs - its the teachings that really matter.

Ancient Gnostics debated his existance too, some believed he existed, others believed him to be a construct - a character which teachers used to express concepts and religious ideas. The faith embodied in a perfect individual.
I think Ashley believes this latter version, that Jesus was a fictional tool.

Of those who believed he existed, their views of his existance varied widely from a quite orthodox view, through docetism to adoptionism, plus variations on those themes. Personally my view is a variation of adoptionism.

PS, I hope you don't mind but I am going to copy part of your reply to another forum (Comparative Religion) where my other online Gnostic friend posts.

No problem. Tell me what he says though.

 

[Katzpur]

Thanks, guys! That's interesting. I really didn't even know where to start asking questions. Now, I'll have to mull this all over in my head.

 

[lunamoth]

No-one knows. I personally believe he was an historic person, however his existance is not essential to my beliefs - its the teachings that really matter.

Ancient Gnostics debated his existance too, some believed he existed, others believed him to be a construct - a character which teachers used to express concepts and religious ideas. The faith embodied in a perfect individual.
I think Ashley believes this latter version, that Jesus was a fictional tool.

Of those who believed he existed, their views of his existance varied widely from a quite orthodox view, through docetism to adoptionism, plus variations on those themes. Personally my view is a variation of adoptionism.


No problem. Tell me what he says though.

Hi Hal, Thank you for your replies. I'd be delighted if you'd pop over and take a look at the thread.
Modern Gnosticism

luna

 

[Halcyon]

Hi Hal, Thank you for your replies. I'd be delighted if you'd pop over and take a look at the thread.
Modern Gnosticism

luna

Well, that is certainly an interesting thread - and is a good example of how diverse Gnosticism is today, which mirrors how diverse it was in ancient times.
Although Gnostics may not encourage diversity, neither do we try and prevent it.
I guess this stems from the concept that gnosis is a very personal goal, it is ineffable so it cannot be taught - each person must forge their own path to God (this is what i think Jesus meant with the symbology of the wide and narrow gates).

There are a couple of things from that thread i would like to give my opinion on;

I would rephrase this: Through personal spiritual effort we can glimpse the knowledge of our place within God (gnosis) and understand the nature of material illusion. But I think that "effort" is the wrong term here. The gnosis isn't something that can be "grasped" or attained, only glimpsed through learning how to think in non-deductive ways.

I would agree with this too, but i wouldn't say that my original statement was false either. The simple truth is, i do not know of anyone alive today who has acheived gnosis, and even if they had, its ineffable, it cannot be described.
So, trying to descibe gnosis to someone else boils down to personal interpretation and imagination. Saying "gnosis can only be found thusly" simply cannot be accurate.

For example, my personal belief is that even a glimpse of the divine Depth would yield more knowledge of God than a human could otherwise know, so even a glimpse would be great understanding.
I would also say that what i mean by "personal spiritual effort" is that gaining/glimpsing gnosis is something we must do ourselves, by our own effort, noone else can do it for us.

Also, the link this person gives leads me to believe that their gnostic path is somewhat different to mine, far more esoteric "new-age" than i am. This modern gnosis is quite different to the ancient understanding, not that it is wrong though. Which leads me onto;

Gnosticism isn't a religion, it's a method. It transcends religions for that reason. It is a means of taking an interior journey to find one's "self." Modern Gnosticism is more closely related to psychology, linguistic philosophy and anthropology then it is with religion.

This is very much a modern take on gnostic belief, in my opinion this is an extreme interpretion. Ancient gnosticism was clearly religious, we can see that from the texts, this modern Jungian interpretation is really quite different to the original Gnostic sects.

I agree moreso with Gnosteric;

I believe that the Gnostic religion helps us understand the experience of Gnosis. I also believe it helps us increase the likelihood of experiencing Gnosis. For me, the religious container helps me translate "wild gnosis" into transformative action and pychological/spiritual growth. It also helps me find community.

Except that i personally do not agree with organised Gnostic chuches, i think they lead to doctine and dogma formation, that i believe to be a hinderance to gnosis acquisition.

Out of curiosity, which of these posters is the "gnostic friend" you speak about?

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Hal, Thank you for your replies, and for taking a look at my other thread. Although it represents quite a lot of diversity in thought about Gnosticism, I don't think it is any moreso than among those of us who go by the name of Christians.

Except that i personally do not agree with organised Gnostic chuches, i think they lead to doctine and dogma formation, that i believe to be a hinderance to gnosis acquisition.

The idea of Gnostic churches seemed like a paradox to me too, since most Gnostics seem to strongly reject any kind of doctrine (and common ritual?). I disagree that doctrine is a hindrance; I see it more as a stepping stone. In science we don't each start out with reinventing concepts like the atom and evolution: we build upon previous knowledge and ideas. I don't see why the same should not be true in religion.

Out of curiosity, which of these posters is the "gnostic friend" you speak about?

Well, more like an online acquaintance: we've had a lot of interesting past discussions at that forum. AdD is the person I referred to, and his take on gnosis is the one I would most closely relate to, except that I am rather more orthodox than he.

luna

 

[Halcyon]

Hi Hal, Thank you for your replies, and for taking a look at my other thread. Although it represents quite a lot of diversity in thought about Gnosticism, I don't think it is any moreso than among those of us who go by the name of Christians.

I agree.

The idea of Gnostic churches seemed like a paradox to me too, since most Gnostics seem to strongly reject any kind of doctrine (and common ritual?).

Yes, kinda. I think the idea is that nothing should be set in stone, as this could lead to a restriction on imagination thus interpretation thus revelation.

I disagree that doctrine is a hindrance; I see it more as a stepping stone. In science we don't each start out with reinventing concepts like the atom and evolution: we build upon previous knowledge and ideas. I don't see why the same should not be true in religion.

I think we'll have to agree to disgree on this then. To me, doctrine leads to the eventual distinction between "correct interpretation" and "incorrect interpretation", i don't like that idea. I think religion differs from science in this regard, whos's to say that my religious interpretation is wrong?

Well, more like an online acquaintance: we've had a lot of interesting past discussions at that forum. AdD is the person I referred to, and his take on gnosis is the one I would most closely relate to, except that I am rather more orthodox than he.

Well, i read a few of his posts and there was a lot that i liked. Although he seems to view Gnosticism quite differently to myself, there is much we agree on too.

 

[lunamoth]

I think we'll have to agree to disgree on this then. To me, doctrine leads to the eventual distinction between "correct interpretation" and "incorrect interpretation", i don't like that idea. I think religion differs from science in this regard, whos's to say that my religious interpretation is wrong?

I guess it depends upon your approach to doctrine. I don't think doctrine necessarily leads to the correct/incorrect dichotomy. However, doctrine does legitimately (IMV) define various schools of religious belief. The problem is not with a Catholic doctrine, for example, proclaiming the Immaculate Conception. The problem is with other Christians (and other religous Faiths) saying that that is wrong. You can say it is a Catholic doctrine, you can say you don't accept it and why, but you can't say that it is 'wrong.'

IMO there is nothing wrong with various religions, denominations, sects, etc. having their own conflicting doctrines that they feel are most right. And I have no problem with whatever 'authority,' if it exists, saying this is what defines 'us' and if you don't accept it you are not 'us.' Does not make much sense to me when someone says "I am 'you' even though I reject much of your doctrine." :areyoucra

And, let's not confuse any of this with the Kingdom of God.

luna

 

[Godfather89]

Doctrine and Dogma is not what Gnosticism is about originally it was for people who discovered Gnosis and wanted to share there experiences with others who had similar experiences. To put a personal experience one that is different for everyone into doctrine is wrong without a shadow of a doubt. As I have said in the past "Many people, many ways back to god, and many ways to understand God."

As for Christ and whether he was real, like a historical physical person on earth type of thing... I would say no I believe he was a visionary type of experience. He is a being but a being of both our minds and yet maintains The Christos Identity on its own. Jesus was probably a commoner who discovered Christos in introspection.