Jesus: Gnosticism?!

[CynthiaCypher]

So Jesus would have had some of this gnostic influence?

As a lieutenant of John the Baptist he probably did.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Well he did teach his disciples to avoid the gentiles....

But I don't know about "narcisisttic", bigoted yes, but bigoted doesn't mean something bad necessarily, it's an emotional buzz word that basically means "Someone who takes a stand and doesn't tolerate opposition to such", technically anyone with a firm opinion is a bigot. I proudly call myself a bigot since I don't tolerate or entertain Gentile "Christian" interpretations of Christianity for example.

Out of curiosity, which Nag Hammadi texts do you go by, Cypher? There's quite a few that I consider valid, and even Clement and others considered some valid.

Mostly the more Valentinian literature like the Gospel of Truth

 

[Shermana]

Mostly the more Valentinian literature like the Gospel of Truth

I like Gospel of Philip a lot.

I totally agree with Paterson Brown here that it was by Philip the Evangelist and that if anything it's not so much "Gnostic" but fits perfectly with early Nazarene beliefs (which as stated, were sometimes called "Gnostic").

It should be noted, however, that Paterson Brown, on the Ecumenical Coptic Project website, has argued forcefully (1) that the text is evidently by Philip the Evangelist (Acts 6:5) rather than Philip the Apostle; and (2) that the three Coptic Gospels of Thomas, Philip and Truth cannot be considered Gnostic writings or compilations, since they all three explicitly affirm the basic reality and sanctity of incarnate life, which Gnosticism by definition considers illusory and evil ('Are the Coptic Gospels Gnostic?'). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Philip

I think there's a lot of things the Valentinians had right. We should discuss it sometime.

 

[outhouse]

As a lieutenant of John the Baptist he probably did.

I dont think he did.

I believe JtB to be more of a Zealot showing many anti-governement traits.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I dont think he did.

I believe JtB to be more of a Zealot showing many anti-governement traits.

I don't think John was a zealot. He baptised soldiers and tax collectors.

 

[paarsurrey]

As a lieutenant of John the Baptist he probably did.

Jesus and John were cousins; but John was a harbinger for Jesus; so Jesus was not John's lieutenant, in my opinion .

 

[Bob Dixon]

There is plenty of evidence that "Gnosticism" was a Jewish movement/cult and that it later developed trappings of the gentile world such as Neoplatonism. Some seem to say it was a form of Proto-Kabbalah even.

Euangelion: Jewish Origins of Gnosticism
The Descent Of Ishtar, The Fall Of Sophia, And The Jewish Roots Of Gnosticism -- By: Edwin M. Yamauchi | Galaxie Software - Looking for the free access full version of this article.
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/006/emerging-2.htm

Now personally I'd be more interested to see the face to match those lips...assuming those are her lips.

Thank you! I like this idea.

 

[paarsurrey]

Who originated gnosticism and on what basis?
What are their basic beliefs?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Who originated gnosticism and on what basis?

The Israelites. Both Jews and Samaritans.

What are their basic beliefs?

There are no basic beliefs. Gnosticism is a mythos not a dogmatic belief system.

 

[Rocky S]

One of our friends here in the thread wants to know if Jesus had originated Gnostic Christianity.

Jesus was a Jew and as such a follower of Moses al-right; he had perhaps some friendship with the Essene Brethren as I get from the following:

THE CRUCIFIXION
BY AN EYEWITNESS



I understand that Essene Brethren played a role in saving Jesus' life from the injuries inflicted on the Cross, please refer page-6 of the above; but I don’t know if the Essene were Gnostic or not.

I know little about Gnosticism and what it stands for.

No, gnosticism is actually refuted in the bible, such as 1,2,3 John or at least early gnosticism. For a variety of reason. A few of the mains beliefs of the Gnostic's at the time, when those particular books were written is the belief that Jesus was not resurrected bodily or that he was not God incarnate, and not the son of God, which John deemed as heretical. Unfortunately a lot of the gnostic writings claiming to be christian were rejected by the early church. Like the gospel of Thomas which I have read but it does not make a whole lot of sence and doctrinally is off.

 

[paarsurrey]

The Israelites. Both Jews and Samaritans.

There are no basic beliefs. Gnosticism is a mythos not a dogmatic belief system.

I meant the first person who originated it?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I meant the first person who originated it?

Take your pick. According to the Gnostic mythos it could be Adam, Cain, Seth, Moses or even the Serpent in the Garden.

 

[paarsurrey]

A few of the mains beliefs of the Gnostic's at the time, when those particular books were written is the belief that Jesus was not resurrected bodily or that he was not God incarnate, and not the son of God, which John deemed as heretical.

I am also certain that:

1. Jesus was not resurrected to heavens bodily.
2. Jesus was not god incarnate,
3. Jesus was not son of god in literal terms.

And I am not a Gnostic.

I think John the Baptist died before the event of Crucifixion; in which he did not die.

Then how could John hold such beliefs the basis of which had not yet happened.

Maybe, you mean some other John. Do you?

 

[paarsurrey]

Take your pick. According to the Gnostic mythos it could be Adam, Cain, Seth, Moses or even the Serpent in the Garden.

So, they are not certain about it.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

So, they are not certain about it.

No. But if you want a myth of the founder of Gnosticism you can take a pick. But if you have gnosis you know where gnosis comes from. If you don't know where gnosis comes from then you just don't have gnosis.

 

[Shermana]

No, gnosticism is actually refuted in the bible, such as 1,2,3 John or at least early gnosticism. For a variety of reason. A few of the mains beliefs of the Gnostic's at the time, when those particular books were written is the belief that Jesus was not resurrected bodily or that he was not God incarnate, and not the son of God, which John deemed as heretical. Unfortunately a lot of the gnostic writings claiming to be christian were rejected by the early church. Like the gospel of Thomas which I have read but it does not make a whole lot of sence and doctrinally is off.

John did not deem the idea that Jesus wasn't God himself a heretical, one that's based on a disputable interpretation of the Gospel of John which we have numerous threads about. The Gospel of Thomas is also arguably not specifically Gnostic, along with other books that are deemed "Gnostic" like Gospel of Philip. Also, I'm not sure the Gnostics didn't call Jesus the "Son of God" either. If anything, the Epistles of John are meant to refute non-Jewish (i.e. anti-Mosaic Law) interpretations of Jesus.

 

[Rocky S]

I am also certain that:

1. Jesus was not resurrected to heavens bodily.
2. Jesus was not god incarnate,
3. Jesus was not son of god in literal terms.

And I am not a Gnostic.

I think John the Baptist died before the event of Crucifixion; in which he did not die.

Then how could John hold such beliefs the basis of which had not yet happened.

Maybe, you mean some other John. Do you?

Greetings paarsurrey, Yes the apostle John not John the Baptist one of the 12 disciples in the Gospels. And the certainty of you beliefs you are entitled to. But those were a few beliefs of early gnostic Christians. The books I were referring to are found in the bible. They are called the 1st, 2nd and 3rd epistles or letters of John, written to the Asian churches about AD 90.

 

[Road Warrior]

Jesus was a narcissistic and very bigoted Jewish man. I highly doubt he would be the follower of any unclean gentiles, let alone go traipsing about a country full of them.

Sorry, but I completely disagree for the following reasons.

1) The quotes of Jesus are most often very inspiring such as the Sermon on the Mount and his any of his parables.

2) It is important to understand there is a line between what a person means or intends and what others say about them. According to the most vocal atheists on this forum I'm a lying conniving hypocrite who deserves to be punished, if not banned. That's their opinion, not mine. Same goes for any person, including Jesus, where they are being judged by what people say about them instead of what they actually said.

3) I agree Jesus was human. Divine in spirit? Extremely insightful? Let's agree to let that go and simply agree he was man. A human. As such he made mistakes. Why he chose to go to the cross is subject to debate, that he did. Instead of wrapping ourselves around an axle of why he did it, my humble recommendation is to stick with common concerns such as what he did... not what Paul did or what "Jesus fan club members" do in this age, but what Jesus actually said and did.

Like other great leaders, Jesus was not only "a mover and a shaker", he was willing to die for his beliefs. How many here are willing to do that? Heck, how many atheists would die for their beliefs?

 

[Rocky S]

John did not deem the idea that Jesus wasn't God himself a heretical, one that's based on a disputable interpretation of the Gospel of John which we have numerous threads about. The Gospel of Thomas is also arguably not specifically Gnostic, along with other books that are deemed "Gnostic" like Gospel of Philip. Also, I'm not sure the Gnostics didn't call Jesus the "Son of God" either. If anything, the Epistles of John are meant to refute non-Jewish (i.e. anti-Mosaic Law) interpretations of Jesus.

Greeting Shermana the Books of Galatians, Colossians,Romans,Ephesians and a couple of others are the epistle about refuting the judaism influence or the Mosaic Law on non jewish Christians. 1,2,3 John and the book of Jude are about a Greek influence on non jewish Christians, a philosophy know as Gnosticism or the Greek word gnosis meaning hidden knowledge. Gnostic's really don't have a set Dogma just that all knowledge is hidden and only through complete allegorical interpretations of the bible reveal the true hidden meaning. (now I am talking about early christian Gnostic here), read Thomas or Philip they an allegorical incoherent mess which were the ear marks of early Gnostic( again talking about early christian gnostics) writings, not meaning to offend anybody who call themselves Gnostic but that is just how it was. You would have to read and study 1st John to understand why John was against these teachings.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Greeting Shermana the Books of Galatians, Colossians,Romans,Ephesians and a couple of others are the epistle about refuting the judaism influence or the Mosaic Law on non jewish Christians. 1,2,3 John and the book of Jude are about a Greek influence on non jewish Christians, a philosophy know as Gnosticism or the Greek word gnosis meaning hidden knowledge. Gnostic's really don't have a set Dogma just that all knowledge is hidden and only through complete allegorical interpretations of the bible reveal the true hidden meaning. (now I am talking about early christian Gnostic here), read Thomas or Philip they an allegorical incoherent mess which were the ear marks of early Gnostic( again talking about early christian gnostics) writings, not meaning to offend anybody who call themselves Gnostic but that is just how it was. You would have to read and study 1st John to understand why John was against these teachings.

They an allegorical incoherent mess to you because God just didn't like you well enough to give you the gnosis to understand them.