WHY Gnostics reject Jehovah is the true God, A Brief Overview

[Christian Gnosis]

There are many reasons why we reject this. I can start with some from the Bible itself, and then use the New Testament to show how Jehovah and the Father are different.

How the children of Israel were forced to take the law with curses

Deuteronomy 27:14 The Levites shall recite to all the people of Israel in a loud voice: 15 "Cursed is the man who carves an image or casts an idol--a thing detestable to the LORD, the work of the craftsman's hands--and sets it up in secret." Then all the people shall say, "Amen!" 16 "Cursed is the man who dishonors his father or his mother." Then all the people shall say, "Amen!" 17 "Cursed is the man who moves his neighbor's boundary stone." Then all the people shall say, "Amen!" 18 "Cursed is the man who leads the blind astray on the road." Then all the people shall say, "Amen!"

These verses are in fact demonstrating what the NT calls the "curse of the law". The Israelites invoked curses on themselves if they didn't follow the commands. However from St. Paul we know the following:

Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”

The very works of the law are a curse, because if you cannot keep them all you are cursed. This is what the New Testament tells us about the nature of Jesus' Father:

1 Corinthians 10:13 No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

God is faithful, he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. This shows that the Father's nature is different from Jehovah's nature. Jehovah would curse the Jews for not keeping something they are unable to keep.

How the Jews are made free from the curses

Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

Now we all know a mere man's death could not break the curses of the law, many men died in the Old Testament. It would take God taking on human flesh to do such a thing. Only the true God could undo the curses of Jehovah on the children of Israel, which is exactly what the NT claims.

Who the God of the Jews really is

John 8:41 No, you are imitating your real father." They replied, "We aren't illegitimate children! God himself is our true Father." 42 Jesus told them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, because I have come to you from God. I am not here on my own, but he sent me. 43 Why can't you understand what I am saying? It's because you can't even hear me! 44 For you are the children of your father the devil, and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning. He has always hated the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies.

2 Chronicles 18:22 "So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you."

When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies.- Jesus

The Gnostics do not teach a anti-Christ or anti-Christian message, we teach what Christianity is really about.

 

[NeedingGnosisNow]

I love this! Thanks.

 

[ziggy2737]

True gnostics do not follow Christianity or the Bible. We do not believe in blood atonnent for sin.

 

[Pleroma]

True gnostics do not follow Christianity or the Bible. We do not believe in blood atonnent for sin.

Then do you follow Abraxas?

 

[Shiranui117]

True gnostics do not follow Christianity or the Bible. We do not believe in blood atonnent for sin.

To be entirely fair to Christians, it is only Western Christianity that teaches that Jesus' death on the Cross was to satisfy the wrath of God, or to take our punishment. None of the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox churches teach these ideas. In fact, such ideas were invented over a thousand years after the start of Christianity!

EDIT: That being said, I have to ask you, Christian Gnosis: You made some excellent points, and now I understand what Paul was talking about with the whole "curse of the Law" idea. However, do you believe the God of the ENTIRE New Testament was Yahweh/the Demiurge, or do you believe that, in some cases, the message of the true God came through (I have in mind Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom of Solomon and Proverbs here) and that the true God was acknowledged and worshipped?

 

[nazz]

True gnostics do not follow Christianity or the Bible. We do not believe in blood atonnent for sin.

"True Gnostics"? There is no orthodoxy in a heterodox movement.

 

[nazz]

I would add this...

Mat 11:27 "All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."

God the Father had not been revealed to the world prior to the incarnation of Christ. He therefore cannot be the God of Israel.

 

[Shiranui117]

I would add this...

Mat 11:27 "All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."

God the Father had not been revealed to the world prior to the incarnation of Christ. He therefore cannot be the God of Israel.

But could not the Son have revealed the Father prior to His Incarnation? Could not Israel have had some knowledge of the Father, even if limited and imperfect?

 

[nazz]

But could not the Son have revealed the Father prior to His Incarnation? Could not Israel have had some knowledge of the Father, even if limited and imperfect?

Yes and I think that was probably the case. Especially in some of the revelations of the Prophets.

The idea that all the ancient Gnostics rejected the OT is a myth or at least an oversimplification. Many saw it as a mixture of words of the True God, the Demiurge, and man.

 

[Shiranui117]

Yes and I think that was probably the case. Especially in some of the revelations of the Prophets.

The idea that all the ancient Gnostics rejected the OT is a myth or at least an oversimplification. Many saw it as a mixture of words of the True God, the Demiurge, and man.

I find this to be the case as well, and as I keep learning about Gnosticism, I think I find myself more and more inclined to agree with it, to one extent or another.

 

[nazz]

I find this to be the case as well, and as I keep learning about Gnosticism, I think I find myself more and more inclined to agree with it, to one extent or another.

It does make exceedingly good sense

 

[Darkness]

Is it fair to consider gnosticism a coherent religion? Or is gnosticism more akin to a modern historical word of classification. I am not historian, but from I do know, it seems like the lines between Christianity and Gnosticism were blurred in the first couple centuries anno domini. Christianity did not become a coherent religion until the Council of Nicaea. Early gnostics appear to me as Christians who are more heavily influenced by Greek Philosophy and Platonism.

 

[nazz]

Is it fair to consider gnosticism a coherent religion? Or is gnosticism more akin to a modern historical word of classification. I am not historian, but from I do know, it seems like the lines between Christianity and Gnosticism were blurred in the first couple centuries anno domini. Christianity did not become a coherent religion until the Council of Nicaea. Early gnostics appear to me as Christians who are more heavily influenced by Greek Philosophy and Platonism.

Gnosticism is not a religion, coherent or not. In fact "gnosticism" was not even a term original Gnostics ever used! It is a term of fairly recent vintage used to refer to varieties of Gnostic thought.

I would not contrast Christianity with Gnosticism but you are right about things being blurry. In the earliest days Christian Gnostics just thought of themselves as Christians as did their opponents. Then a certain John the Elder came along and anathematized some of them (docetists) even though he would probably be considered a Gnostic himself as would the author of the Gospel of John! Later all Gnostics got a bad rap from what emerged as the triumphant orthodoxy.

 

[nazz]

Also, strange as it may seem (strange due to the rejection of the Jewish deity), Gnosticism's true roots may lay in Judaism itself (rather than Greek philosophy). Or so suggests a book I recently read.

 

[Shiranui117]

Also, strange as it may seem (strange due to the rejection of the Jewish deity), Gnosticism's true roots may lay in Judaism itself (rather than Greek philosophy). Or so suggests a book I recently read.

Yes, I've seen something similar being argued by another poster on this forum. For example, Proverbs 8 speaks of Wisdom, and the entire book speaks of a female personification of Wisdom, or in Greek, Sophia. This could very well be from where the idea of the Aeon Sophia came.

Also, in my times of speaking to a man who's a member of the Ecclesia Gnostica, as well as studying Gnosticism, I've noticed that there are actually quite a few similarities between Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Christian Gnosticism, in terms of soteriology and spiritual practice.

 

[nazz]

Yes, I've seen something similar being argued by another poster on this forum. For example, Proverbs 8 speaks of Wisdom, and the entire book speaks of a female personification of Wisdom, or in Greek, Sophia. This could very well be from where the idea of the Aeon Sophia came.

Also, in my times of speaking to a man who's a member of the Ecclesia Gnostica, as well as studying Gnosticism, I've noticed that there are actually quite a few similarities between Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Christian Gnosticism, in terms of soteriology and spiritual practice.

Could you share what you think some of those might be?

 

[Shiranui117]

Could you share what you think some of those might be?

Sure.

-The first thing that sticks out to me is the comparison between the Eastern Orthodox idea of theosis, and the Gnostic idea that we all have within us sparks of the Divinity, and that we are ourselves of a divine origin, and must reunite with our Father in the Pleroma. Now, the Eastern Orthodox idea of theosis is this: We were redeemed by Christ, when He shared fully in our human nature by dying on the Cross. He reconciled our humanity to His Divinity by dying, and when He rose from the dead, He brought us up into new life. In other words, He had shared in our humanity by dying, now it's our turn to share in God's life by being born again/being baptized. We partake of the Divine Nature and come into communion with God, and become ever more like Him (2 Corinthians 3:18, 2 Peter 1:4, Matthew 5:48) even if there is always that line between Creator and created. We must cooperate with God in order to achieve this, however; God does not take us kicking and screaming, but only helps us after we accept His help and work with His grace(without which we cannot be saved). The differences with Gnosticism are clear, but the similarities are striking to me.

-Another thing that sticks out to me is that many Christian Gnostics believed in the Trinity, as clearly shown in the Gospel of Philip. I understand that there are some differences in how the Trinity is perceived, but the fact that the Christian Gnostics agree on what many believe to be one of the foundational Christian beliefs, and that the Gnostic scriptures have one of the most explicit references to the Trinity, speaks volumes.

-Add onto that the idea that, in Orthodox Christianity, man is not a criminal guilty of the crime of sin. Rather, sin is something that inhibits his relationship with the Divine, and also hinders man's ability to get back to God. This ties back into the first point.

-And then you have the Gnostics being even more emphatic about the virgin birth of Jesus, making clear that the Holy Spirit could not have impregnated Mary, since the Holy Spirit is spoken of as feminine!

-Also, from my experience, the Orthodox do have a sense of experiencing the Divine Light, the same Light that was emitted from Christ on Mount Tabor. So, in this sense, coming to have a knowledge and experience of God gained through God's grace and cooperating with it, and being filled with the Divine Light and the Presence and grace of God, is a key point of Orthodox monastic practice. I believe this comes quite close to a few aspects of gnosis and experiencing the Pleroma.

Above all, I believe the only real thing separating Orthodox Christianity from Christian Gnosticism is the cosmology. The differences in soteriology, eschatology and theology all spring from there, I think.

 

[nazz]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

 

[millennium3000]

IN YOUR copy of the Bible, how is Psalm 83:18 translated? The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures renders this verse: “That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.” A number of other Bible translations give similar renderings. However, many translations leave out the name Jehovah, replacing it with such titles as “Lord” or “Eternal.” What belongs in this verse? A title or the name Jehovah?


God’s name in Hebrew letters

This verse speaks about a name. In the original Hebrew in which much of the Bible was written, a unique personal name appears here. It is spelled יהוה (YHWH) in Hebrew letters. In English, the common rendering of that name is “Jehovah.” Does that name occur in only one Bible verse? No. It appears in the original text of the Hebrew Scriptures nearly 7,000 times!

How important is God’s name? Consider the model prayer that Jesus Christ gave. It begins this way: “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified.” (Matthew 6:9) Later, Jesus prayed to God: “Father, glorify your name.” In response, God spoke from heaven, saying: “I both glorified it and will glorify it again.” (John 12:28) Clearly, God’s name is of the utmost importance. Why, then, have some translators left this name out of their translations of the Bible and replaced it with titles?

There seem to be two main reasons. First, many claim that the name should not be used because the original way to pronounce it is unknown today. Ancient Hebrew was written without vowels. Therefore, no one today can say for sure exactly how people of Bible times pronounced YHWH. However, should this prevent us from using God’s name? In Bible times, the name Jesus may have been pronounced Yeshua or possibly Yehoshua—no one can say for certain. Yet, people the world over today use different forms of the name Jesus, pronouncing it in the way that is common in their language. They do not hesitate to use the name just because they do not know its first-century pronunciation. Similarly, if you were to travel to a foreign land, you might well find that your own name sounds quite different in another tongue. Hence, uncertainty about the ancient pronunciation of God’s name is no reason for not using it.

A second reason often given for omitting God’s name from the Bible involves a long-standing tradition of the Jews. Many of them hold that God’s name should never be pronounced. This belief is evidently based on a misapplication of a Bible law that states: “You must not take up the name of Jehovah your God in a worthless way, for Jehovah will not leave the one unpunished who takes up his name in a worthless way.”—Exodus 20:7.

This law forbids the misuse of God’s name. But does it forbid the respectful use of his name? Not at all. The writers of the Hebrew Bible (the “Old Testament”) were all faithful men who lived by the Law that God gave to the ancient Israelites. Yet, they made frequent use of God’s name. For instance, they included it in many psalms that were sung out loud by crowds of worshipers. Jehovah God even instructed his worshipers to call upon his name, and faithful ones obeyed. (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21) Hence, Christians today do not hesitate to use God’s name respectfully, as Jesus surely did.—John 17:26.

In replacing God’s name with titles, Bible translators make a serious mistake. They make God seem remote and impersonal, whereas the Bible urges humans to cultivate “intimacy with Jehovah.” (Psalm 25:14) Think of an intimate friend of yours. How close would you really be if you never learned your friend’s name? Similarly, when people are kept in ignorance about God’s name, Jehovah, how can they become truly close to God? Furthermore, when people do not use God’s name, they also lack knowledge of its wonderful meaning. What does the divine name mean?

God himself explained the meaning of his name to his faithful servant Moses. When Moses asked about God’s name, Jehovah replied: “I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be.” (Exodus 3:14) Rotherham’s translation renders those words: “I Will Become whatsoever I please.” So Jehovah can become whatever is needed in order to fulfill his purposes.

Suppose that you could become whatever you wanted to become. What would you do for your friends? If one of them became seriously ill, you could become a skilled doctor and perform a cure. If another suffered a financial loss, you could become a wealthy benefactor and come to his rescue. The truth is, though, that you are limited in what you can become. All of us are. As you study the Bible, you will be amazed to see how Jehovah becomes whatever is needed in order to fulfill his promises. And it pleases him to use his power in behalf of those who love him. (2 Chronicles 16:9) These beautiful facets of Jehovah’s personality are lost to those who do not know his name.

Clearly, the name Jehovah belongs in the Bible. Knowing its meaning and using it freely in our worship are powerful aids in drawing closer to our heavenly Father, Jehovah.*

 

[Shiranui117]

Are you a Jehovah's Witness, millennium? I'm guessing so by your insistence on the name Jehovah, and the fact that you use the New World Translation.