Gnosticism

JR5

JR5

Other Christian
What are your guy's thoughts on gnosticism? I did a forum search and there are no topics on it; I thought it would make an interesting conversation.

There seems to be two definitions of "gnostic". The first is kind of a smear term against whatever one doesn't like. According to scholar Ioan Culianu:
Once I believed that Gnosticism was a well-defined phenomenon belonging to the religious history of Late Antiquity. Of course, I was ready to accept the idea of different prolongations of ancient Gnosis, and even that of spontaneous generation of views of the world in which, at different times, the distinctive features of Gnosticism occur again.
I was soon to learn, however, that I was a naif indeed. Not only Gnosis was gnostic, but the Catholic authors were gnostic, the Neoplatonic too, Reformation was gnostic, Communism was gnostic, Nazism was gnostic, liberalism, existentialism and psychoanalysis were gnostic too, modern biology was gnostic, Blake, Yeats, Kafka were gnostic….I learned further that science is gnostic and superstition is gnostic…Hegel is gnostic and Marx is gnostic; all things and their opposite are equally gnostic.
Click to expand...

The other definition is the Elcesaites, Mandaeism, Simonians, Valentinianism, Basilidians, Marcionism, Manichaeism, Catharism etc. meaning. Basically a malevolent Demiurge as creator and maintainer of material reality represented by the God of the Old Testament (angry, jealous, tribal) versus the Godhead, God of the New Testament (loving acceptance); one needs to esoterically experience gnosis oneself in order to connect to God.
 
JR5 said:
What are your guy's thoughts on gnosticism? I did a forum search and there are no topics on it; I thought it would make an interesting conversation.

There seems to be two definitions of "gnostic". The first is kind of a smear term against whatever one doesn't like. According to scholar Ioan Culianu:


The other definition is the Elcesaites, Mandaeism, Simonians, Valentinianism, Basilidians, Marcionism, Manichaeism, Catharism etc. meaning. Basically a malevolent Demiurge as creator and maintainer of material reality represented by the God of the Old Testament (angry, jealous, tribal) versus the Godhead, God of the New Testament (loving acceptance); one needs to esoterically experience gnosis oneself in order to connect to God.
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell, genuine "gnosticism" is essentially the same as occultism. Everybody who calls himself that has weird, half-baked intellectual allegories for Christian concepts, while entirely lacking any specific knowledge of dogma. Robert Sepehr is one of the people I'd put in that category. I like some of his videos, but a lot of his religious "insights" are pretentious garbage.
The fundamental idea is always that there are mystic or pseudo-scientific "truths" hidden in the religion which only particularly intelligent people can decipher. They usually boil down to some jazzed-up version of materialism or perennialism or a combination of the two. Sometimes outright Luciferianism/Satanism.

That's to be distinguished from gnosis, which refers to the actual deep wisdom that one obtains from actually studying dogma and/or practicing asceticism.
 
You might find this interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Voegelin#On_Gnosticism

I have not read Voegelin myself but he was heavily cited in the 10/10 book Antichrist: The Fulfillment of Globalization by G.M. Davis which characterized enlightenment/masonic/modernic ideas as gnostic under a similar conception.

These Gnostics usually boil down to Satanic inversions and deceptions that try to sell you a secret *~*real hidden truth*~* about God, but it's all smoke and mirrors when you get down to it and fundamentally at odds with all Christ's teachings, which do not dwell in darkness.

Raskolnikov said:
As far as I can tell, genuine "gnosticism" is essentially the same as occultism. Everybody who calls himself that has weird, half-baked intellectual allegories for Christian concepts, while entirely lacking any specific knowledge of dogma. Robert Sepehr is one of the people I'd put in that category. I like some of his videos, but a lot of his religious "insights" are pretentious garbage.
The fundamental idea is always that there are mystic or pseudo-scientific "truths" hidden in the religion which only particularly intelligent people can decipher. They usually boil down to some jazzed-up version of materialism or perennialism or a combination of the two. Sometimes outright Luciferianism/Satanism.
Click to expand...

Too true... I once got into a long argument with a occultist/gnostic in a YouTube comment section (I know, I know) and after dozens of comments pinning him down on what he actually believed, all his mysterious and grand-sounding rhetoric finally boiled down to "worship the sun bro.... because like, Jesus is the light man... the sun makes light bro... don't you get it..."
 
Iacobus said:
Too true... I once got into a long argument with a occultist/gnostic in a YouTube comment section (I know, I know) and after dozens of comments pinning him down on what he actually believed, all his mysterious and grand-sounding rhetoric finally boiled down to "worship the sun bro.... because like, Jesus is the light man... the sun makes light bro... don't you get it..."
Click to expand...
Yes, there are a lot of people who profess to believe in ideas that they don't understand. According to Stephan Hoeller, the commonalities of the gnostic traditions include the following fourteen points:
  1. There is an original and transcendental spiritual unity from which emanated a vast manifestation of pluralities.
  2. The manifest universe of matter and mind was created not by the original spiritual unity but by spiritual beings possessing inferior powers.
  3. One of the objectives of these creators is the perpetual separation of humans from the unity (God).
  4. The human being is a composite: the outer aspect is the handiwork of the inferior creators, while the inner aspect is a fallen spark of the ultimate divine unity.
  5. The sparks of transcendental holiness slumber in their material and mental prison, their self-awareness stupefied by the forces of materiality and mind.
  6. The slumbering sparks have not been abandoned by the ultimate unity; rather, a constant effort directed toward their awakening and liberation comes forth from this unity.
  7. The awakening of the inmost divine essence in humans comes through salvific knowledge, called “gnosis.”
  8. Gnosis is not brought about by belief or by the performance of virtuous deeds or by obedience to commandments; these at best serve to prepare one for liberating knowledge.
  9. Among those aiding the slumbering sparks, a particular position of honor and importance belongs to a feminine emanation of the unity, Sophia (Wisdom). She was involved in the creation of the world and ever since has remained the guide of her orphaned human children.
  10. From the earliest times of history, messengers of Light have been sent forth from the ultimate unity for the purpose of advancing gnosis in the souls of humans.
  11. The greatest of these messengers in our historical and geographical matrix was the descended Logos of God manifest in Jesus Christ.
  12. Jesus exercised a twofold ministry: he was a teacher, imparting instruction concerning the way of gnosis; and he was a hierophant, imparting mysteries.
  13. The mysteries imparted by Jesus (which are also known as sacraments) are mighty aids toward gnosis and have been entrusted by him to his apostles and their successors.
  14. Through the spiritual practice of the mysteries (sacraments) and a relentless and uncompromising striving for gnosis, humans can steadily advance toward liberation from all confinement, material and otherwise. The ultimate objective of this process of liberation is the achievement of salvific knowledge and with it, freedom from embodied existence and return to the ultimate unity.
 
JR5 said:
Yes, there are a lot of people who profess to believe in ideas that they don't understand. According to Stephan Hoeller, the commonalities of the gnostic traditions include the following fourteen points:
  1. There is an original and transcendental spiritual unity from which emanated a vast manifestation of pluralities.
  2. The manifest universe of matter and mind was created not by the original spiritual unity but by spiritual beings possessing inferior powers.
  3. One of the objectives of these creators is the perpetual separation of humans from the unity (God).
  4. The human being is a composite: the outer aspect is the handiwork of the inferior creators, while the inner aspect is a fallen spark of the ultimate divine unity.
  5. The sparks of transcendental holiness slumber in their material and mental prison, their self-awareness stupefied by the forces of materiality and mind.
  6. The slumbering sparks have not been abandoned by the ultimate unity; rather, a constant effort directed toward their awakening and liberation comes forth from this unity.
  7. The awakening of the inmost divine essence in humans comes through salvific knowledge, called “gnosis.”
  8. Gnosis is not brought about by belief or by the performance of virtuous deeds or by obedience to commandments; these at best serve to prepare one for liberating knowledge.
  9. Among those aiding the slumbering sparks, a particular position of honor and importance belongs to a feminine emanation of the unity, Sophia (Wisdom). She was involved in the creation of the world and ever since has remained the guide of her orphaned human children.
  10. From the earliest times of history, messengers of Light have been sent forth from the ultimate unity for the purpose of advancing gnosis in the souls of humans.
  11. The greatest of these messengers in our historical and geographical matrix was the descended Logos of God manifest in Jesus Christ.
  12. Jesus exercised a twofold ministry: he was a teacher, imparting instruction concerning the way of gnosis; and he was a hierophant, imparting mysteries.
  13. The mysteries imparted by Jesus (which are also known as sacraments) are mighty aids toward gnosis and have been entrusted by him to his apostles and their successors.
  14. Through the spiritual practice of the mysteries (sacraments) and a relentless and uncompromising striving for gnosis, humans can steadily advance toward liberation from all confinement, material and otherwise. The ultimate objective of this process of liberation is the achievement of salvific knowledge and with it, freedom from embodied existence and return to the ultimate unity.
Click to expand...
Yeah, good post, I forgot to mention that. Gnosticism usually implies some sort of neo-platonism and marcionism (the latter is optional, but to be found often). A dualistic/monistic metaphysical system. It's philosophically incoherent, because it automatically excludes the validity of knowledge (if ultimate truth is absolutely simple, then any knowledge of distinctions is illusory).

This analysis of @BrotherAugustine 's debate with Marty Leeds basically contains all the cornerstones of the debate between (Orthodox) Christians and gnostics.




EDIT: I underemphasized the meaning of gnosis in genuine Christianity. I think there is a lot of room for expanding one's horizon in the Orthodox mystical tradition. But it's typically not achieved just by outsmarting someone intellectually. The intellect is involved, but virtues and pain of heart are its engines. It's a kind of wisdom that can be earned regardless of one's individual IQ.
If you travel around, you'll meet 80 IQ people in some countries who have a very deep understanding of God and how the spiritual substructure of life works. But it's not knowledge that you acquire by reading it somewhere, but by banning illusions and blindness from your nous by practicing virtue. That is the beauty of Orthodox Christianity. If you want to, you can go very deep in studying the logical consistency and complexity of our dogma, but if you have a low intellectual capacity, you can reach a high level simply by receiving the sacraments and practicing the virtues.

You can become holy just by looking at icons and practicing the virtues read about in Liturgy. That's why Liturgy and iconography are so important. Christianity is the true public religion. Yes, there are "secrets" and mysterious aspects, but their mysteriousness is not rooted in deception, but our own distorted and sinful minds. The closer you get to a pure heart, the more it opens itself up for you.

Sorry, that was a bit of an excursion, but I felt like I should put it some positive Christian messaging in there somewhere.
 
Last edited:
Something on gnosticism and how it relates to a lot of SJW wokeness and activism stuff that is all the rage these days


the Gnostic mentality holds that only an elect who have received a special gnosis or “knowledge” from a Gnostic sage can see through the illusory appearances of things to the reality of the incorrigible evil of this world. You might wonder how this differs from Christian appeal to special divine revelation. Once again, the difference is radical. Christian teaching is essentially exoteric. Christianity holds, first, that at least the basic truths of natural law and natural theology are available in principle to everyone and at any time, just by using their natural rational powers. Second, it holds also that even special divine revelation is publicly available to all, and backed by evidence that anyone can examine, viz. the evidence that a prophet claiming a revelation has performed genuine miracles. Gnostic teaching, by contrast, is esoteric. It holds that the truth cannot be known from the appearances of things or from any official sources, but has been passed along “under the radar” and is accessible only to the initiated. The Gnostic epistemology is what today would be called a “hermeneutics of suspicion.”
Click to expand...

the Gnostic mindset sees reality in starkly Manichean terms, as a twilight struggle between the sinister forces that rule this evil world and those who have been “purified” of it and armed with gnosis. Once again, you might think this differs little from Christian teaching, but once again you’d be wrong. Christian doctrine holds that natural reason and natural law provide common ground by which the Christian and the unbeliever can debate their differences and cooperate in pursuing common ends. And it holds that the righteous and the wicked – the wheat and the tares – will in any event always be intermingled in this life, to be separated only at the Last Judgment. The Gnostic mindset is not interested in such common ground or tolerant of such differences.
Click to expand...

the Gnostic posits a final victory of the “pure” over the evil forces that govern everyday reality. For Gnostic heretical movements of the past, this entailed an ultimate release from the material world. But the modern political successors of Gnosticism tend to be materialist, seeing no hope for a life beyond this one. Here is where Voegelin sees the greatest difference between ancient and modern forms of Gnosticism. As Voegelin famously put it, modern forms of Gnosticism “immanentize the eschaton” – that is to say, they relocate the final victory of the righteous in this world rather than the next, and look forward to a heaven on earth.
Click to expand...
 
Wutang said:
Something on gnosticism and how it relates to a lot of SJW wokeness and activism stuff that is all the rage these days

Click to expand...
He seems to be positing Natural Theology as the default Christian epistemology, which is not something I would agree with on the basis of Romans 1. Either the Triune God created the world or He didn't. And if He did, then that act of creation serves as the foundation for any knowledge at all. A "common ground," also known as Classical Apologetics, with non-believers requires you to start with your shared finite experiences and reason your way up to the Christian God. Needless to say, you won't find any of the Apostles arguing that way in the Bible.
 
Wutang said:
^ The writer I posted is a Catholic philosopher that has Aristotelianism-Thomism as his basis which means he's going to be be promoting natural law/theology which yes, got it's start with the pagan Greco-Romans.
Click to expand...
In any event, I think that serves as a good case study for how one distinguishes between Gnosticism and Christianity. People like Ken Wilson have called predestination gnostic. Other people view asceticism as gnostic. Climbing through the ranks of heavenly beings, the pleroma, through intercession until you are reunited with the One True God is called gnostic. There is a tendency to ascribe the gnostic label to anyone who does not define Christian orthodoxy the same way as you do, and so I wish that more people would be slower to use the term and instead dig down on what was definitional of gnosticism, which is almost impossible to do as there was no one uniform version of gnosticism. It was essentially the New Age of it's day.
 
Good thread.

I became interested in Gnosticism about a year ago after reading some green text post about the Loosh theory. The Loosh Theory states that we are in prison planet, and some type of interdimensional aliens created Earth as a prison in order to trap souls in these material bodies for the sole purpose of causing pain and suffering. Pain and suffering produces "loosh" which these interdimensional aliens use as a type of natural resource (much like how we use natural gas). It's a way of trying to explain the problem of Evil in a created world. Anyway, Loosh theory is more of less a retooling of Gnosticism. In order to learn more about Gnosticism, I've been reading the Nag Hammadi Scriptures by Meyer and Gnosticism by Stephan Hoeller.

Gnostics place the feminine figure Sophia in a prominent position, and claim that God is both feminine and masculine and is therefore both our Father and Mother (i.e. God is a tranny). The Gnostic gospels include a "Gospel of Mary," which implies that women have the authority to teach. These elements have led New Age, feminists, and trannies (i.e. the Wachowskis) to adopt Gnosticism.

Gnosticism leads to "gurus" because faith in God and the sacraments don't matter. What matters in Gnosticism is finding the secret sauce (the "gnosis"). This gnosis will lead you to escape the prison planet and ascend to the astral plane. This hidden knowledge can only be learned from someone else who has access to this hidden knowledge. Jesus was just one of many beings who could provide you with some of this secret knowledge. Other gurus or sources of hidden knowledge could include Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Free Masonism, and just about every New Age cult. It's your job to sort through it and see what knowledge allows you to ascend to the astral plane.

Gnostics believe that everything in the material world is corrupt and evil, but they cannot answer the simple question: if an evil entity created the material world, then why is there beauty in it?
 
staddlelateen said:
Gnostics believe that everything in the material world is corrupt and evil, but they cannot answer the simple question: if an evil entity created the material world, then why is there beauty in it?
Click to expand...
As far as I understand it under the gnostic conception the Demiurge is as much a bungler as he malevolent (one of it’s other names, Yaldabaoth, means “the childish god”); he tried to create a perfect material world but failed. His arrogance keeps him from seeing the true Godhead above him. Additionally living beings have shards of the God-soul within us. A Demiurgic prison planet Hellworld doens't necessarily means that it's 100% bad all the time.
 
staddlelateen said:
The Gnostic gospels include a "Gospel of Mary," which implies that women have the authority to teach. These elements have led New Age, feminists, and trannies (i.e. the Wachowskis) to adopt Gnosticism.
Click to expand...
The title of Ever-Virgin, aiparthenos, also comes from a gnostic text, namely the Gospel of James. As well as the idea that Jesus did not have a physical, human birth.

JR5 said:
As far as I understand it under the gnostic conception the Demiurge is as much a bungler as he malevolent (one of it’s other names, Yaldabaoth, means “the childish god”); he tried to create a perfect material world but failed. His arrogance keeps him from seeing the true Godhead above him. Additionally living beings have shards of the God-soul within us. A Demiurgic prison planet Hellworld doens't necessarily means that it's 100% bad all the time.
Click to expand...
The gnostics, and the platonists that preceded them, had a theodicy of their own: if spirit is good then how did this evil creation come to be? From thence came the pleroma and the lowest being of the pleroma, the Demiurge. The truly most satanic aspect of gnosticism is that it equivocated the Demiurge with YHWH. For them, the creation is intrinsically evil. For Christians, the creation was good but fell. For them, spirit and matter are irreconcilable. For Christians, spirit and matter are reconciled in the person of Jesus Christ. The idea of physical, bodily resurrection was not good news to the gnostics. This is why the philosophers sneered at Paul in Acts 17:32, because he was preaching a bodily resurrection.
 
JR5 said:
As far as I understand it under the gnostic conception the Demiurge is as much a bungler as he malevolent (one of it’s other names, Yaldabaoth, means “the childish god”); he tried to create a perfect material world but failed. His arrogance keeps him from seeing the true Godhead above him. Additionally living beings have shards of the God-soul within us. A Demiurgic prison planet Hellworld doens't necessarily means that it's 100% bad all the time.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on which conception of Gnosticism you are referring to. There's no central "theology" or "mythology" of Gnosticism, and there are different "sects" or conceptions of it. As I mentioned before, many of New Age cults and Eastern religions have gnostic philosophies.

Valentinius, one of the most prominent ancient Gnostics, taught that the Demiurge tried to imitate Divine Creation, but failed to do so. He could only create a faint image of it, which is why our world is so deeply flawed and broken. In that sense, the Demiurge sort of mimics man's inclination to try and "play God" and ends up creating one abomination after the other. In other Gnostic "schools," the Demiurge had an evil purpose where he wanted to trap souls in a corrupt material world.

In any case, this discussion leads to another problem I have with Gnosticism: it doesn't have any system of apologetics, or any unifying philosophy or theology.
 
Is all of Carl Jung and archetypes etc... considered gnostic?

I don't know how much harm it does. It's blasphemous I guess but could also help people to understand there is an absolute truth which is the beginning of conversion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top