Did Gnosticism try and Usurp Christianity or is it the Real Message of Christ.

reply to post by LeoVirgo


I wouldn't have a problem if the teachings were handed down to Mary. Many people think that Mary is the beloved disciple - I don't but many do.

But we all are equal spiritually. It really bothers me, when Paul says that he would never allow a woman to teach but in Christs own teaching he states that at the resurrection we are all like the angels - neither male nor female. I have respect for Paul, but if he were alive today - I don't think he would grant me the same. And another thing, Paul refused to divulge certain things. He expounded on the Holy Spirit somewhat, but he teased by telling people they could only have babies milk and not solid food and it's been left at that ever since. What's going on in my mind is if more people had the solid food, there wouldn't be so many atheists and the veil would be lifted off of all those pesky secret societies, exclusive to men.

The truth isn't exclusive and it can't be bought.

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
If Jesus taught to find God within us, the Churches would have no purpose

The perfect nutshell!

And so the biblical canon was loaded accordingly, and fired back on the people

Originally posted by americandingbat
defcon5 and Lucid Lunacy, may I suggest that the two of you, if you're interested in arguing this topic, consider becoming Fighters and doing so in a structured way in the Debate Forum? .

Well I wasn't one of the members that sparked this thread's creation ...but I would be more then willing

Although this thread's title misleads me a lil...

this one makes more sense to me historically...

Did Roman-Catholicism usurp a gnostic Christian community?

I say this because, I don't think anyone is in denial that post-325AD Christianity became what it remains today (at leas insofar as it's main tenets). So really it's a matter of discussing Christianity pre-Constantine role. What, if any, were the differences between the early Christian communities and the organization of The Catholic Church, and the subsequent canonization of scripture. And how do these differences ultimately reflect on the teachings of Christ itself.

Also, in light of this idea, if there truly are profound differences; it kinda brings new meaning to conservative Christian

[edit on 22-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Sorry, I thought I remembered from the other thread that it was the two of you who had started the discussion.

Whoever it was, I think it would make a great debate

I don't know what defcon5's religious affiliation is, so he might not be willing to limit it to pre vs. post-Niceae; you might have to take into account Protestant theology of one form or another (although some of them sneak some gnosticism back in, in my opinion).

While this thread has been very interesting so far, I don't think it's likely to answer the question posed by the OP, or even the version you suggest

reply to post by americandingbat


That's the issue right there, and it's a huge issue. You can't limit a discussion about gnosticism to post 325AD

Wasn't trying to suggest a new version, but to clarify what a legitimate discussion of gnosticism would look like...

... since gnostic texts (practically) were excluded from the canon during the formation of the first Church (which was Roman-Catholicism).

Obviously Christian communities pre-existed that formation. So was their (the Christian communities prior to that point) teachings primarily gnostic or not? Clarification was my attempt here

[edit on 22-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

I don't know how you would define the question exactly, but obviously by 325 there were both Gnostic and non-Gnostic factions in the christian community – otherwise you wouldn't get Niceae and the beginning of canon formation.

How do you plan on proving that the Gnostics were the "real" ones?

On second thought, don't answer that if you think you might want to debate it

If you do, and you can get someone to agree to a specific statement to argue, u2u one of the debate forum mods, or just me and I can let you know how to go about it.

[edit on 11/22/08 by americandingbat]

reply to post by americandingbat


The "real ones" isn't necessarily what I would be attempting to show.

Rather, that prior to the canonization of scripture and formation of that Church, the Christian communities were primarily gnostic in nature.

...thus if this were the case, it wouldn't be Gnosticism usurping Christianity, as Christianity would have been gnostic originally anyways.

Thus my premise: The Christian community before 325 AD was primarily gnostic.

Thank you Americandingbat for that wording

Well, I will present what I can to back up my assertion later in this thread...unless anyone wants to officially debate me on it (via Debate Forum)

[edit on 22-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

I would personally like to see a true debate. Should be interesting. The closest I ever came to such an endeavor was showing how many beliefs were wrong using The Bible as is through bad or misunderstood translation. I've just started reading some of the Gnostic texts and many remind me of Eastern Religions.

I'm way too out of touch to do that again as I consider myself Taoist and stopped having anything to do with Christianity years ago other than speaking to a few people. I would also like to question why other Religions based upon Christianity do not agree but, do follow The Roman Catholic based bible as the root of the faith? For instance the Baptists in this area think The Pope is "The Anti-Christ" and the church is the "Beast" of Revelations.

This also could bring home a strange point that if Gnosticism was the true Christian faith then the current belief system of the true meaning of Jesus (Yeshua Ben Yosef) is lost. Therefore could the current following of beliefs be their much foretold "Anti-Christ"? The "One World Relgion" based in Revelations could be....?

[edit on 22/11/08 by toochaos4u]

Heres a great source for Gnostic Texts for those interested in some reading.
sacred-texts.com

I do agree with others on the point that the divine feminine is a key component ignored(and other) by the Orthodox church.

I'll quote the Gospel of Thomas and attempt to contribute somehow.

Jesus said, "I am not your master. Because you have drunk,
you have become intoxicated by the bubbling spring which I have
measured out."

I think this speaks to the Orthodox church's need to place everything "at the foot of the cross" which is the throne of their 'Master' Jesus, forgetting Jesus actually had a Master and being wholly enveloped by ideas about Jesus and his master, God, being one in the same in ways which they are not.
...im thinking i might be barking up the wrong tree with these statements though.
[edited to fix quote]

[edit on 22-11-2008 by s0ndernet]

If I might interpose myself into this celebration of Gnosticism and do so as a devout Catholic which might give another perspective, or provide someone for Gnostics to sink their teeth into :p Many comments here have been “anti-Church/organised religion” in their nature so here come’s Holy Mother Church, or at least one of her servants. Fear not, I am not warming any irons or piling up faggots.

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
The gnostics resonates with me for this very reasons. They teach that the MOST HIGH is not, ever was, nor ever will be, capable of wrath, greed, jealousy or pride. Everyone wants to jump up and quote a scripture...but its not even logical to me.

Catholicism, in two major strands of discussing the divine works apophatically and cataphatically (via negativa, via positiva). The Angelic Doctor, Thomas Aquinas, had a marvellous description of the via media between the two. We can use human language to discuss attributes of the divine as long as we recognise that such a use of language is only approaching a description of that which is totally other to us, the divine. In ST I, q.13, a.1 www.newadvent.org... he says:

in this life we cannot see the essence of God; but we know God from creatures as their principle, and also by way of excellence and remotion. In this way therefore He can be named by us from creatures, yet not so that the name which signifies Him expresses the divine essence in itself.

Any positive description of God needs qualified by this sense of remotion when employed. The 9th Century Theologian/Philosopher Eriugena had a neat formula for such expressions, taking love for example: “God is love (as we understand it), God is not love (as we understand it), God is beyond love (as we understand it). The fully understood revelation of the Divine is remote from our understanding in our current circumstances. Claims to the contrary, and Gnosticism in particular, patches the veil in the Temple torn by Christ’s sacrifice and puts God back in the darkness of the Holy of Holies where only the elect can enter and see Him, while the hoi poloi remain outside slaughtering their sheep and one another.

Originally posted by Hallberg Rassy
It was organized Christianity that usurped the message of Christ from a personal relationship with the Divine, and replaced it with a relationship to an organized theocracy.

This claim is made a few times here in this thread (and I encounter it frequently in other threads) “One soul good, a billion souls bad”, that notion that the Church deliberately became an obstacle between God and humanity. One benefit of Catholicism’s much maligned multiplicity of saints is that their stories are the stories of people from every background, race, profession and suffering. In continuing communication with their stories (and them in their heavenly proximity to that we cannot yet encompass) we see the full potential of the human heart in, despite (or often because) of the vagaries of life, which find success in their struggle to find God and remain faithful to Him. A quick read of the poetry of St John of the Cross shows the depths of intimacy one can find with God in this life. The saints are upheld not as an example of what we can never be, nor as an exclusive club of the elect but as “this great company of witnesses (who) spurs us on to victory.” (Roman Missal, Preface of Holy Men and Women I). There is always, always, a personal relationship with God, a relationship with God that is in communion with the Mystical Body of Christ which is the Church. The Gnostic “I know” is replaced by the “We believe” of the Church in which one submits one’s insights to the sensus fidelium. Those insights thus submitted may be confirmed or may need correcting. This sounds appalling to modern sensibilities and the relativism of our age, it also makes those who feel they have a particular personal knowledge blanch but gives the person the protection of the Mystical Body inspired still by the Holy Spirit and ensures phantoms are not worshipped in personal, and accidentally ignorant, preference of the Truth.
The Lord’s Prayer was mentioned earlier in the belief that the Church denuded it of its full splendour by making it a matter of rote recitation rather than a formula that liberates prayer. To this contention I offer St Augustine’s letter to Proba (Letter 130, paras 20-22) www.newadvent.org...

Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
No matter what they have controlled the content of Jesus' teachings and of course, I'm of the opinion, that Jesus knew this would end up happening and this is the very reason there is an elect group of people, that he makes known his mysteries to.

I’m afraid I would completely reverse this interpretation. Christ knew there would be those who would claim particular election to know the mysteries of the Divine so He established His apostolic Church by the particular gift of the Holy Spirirt (the ruach elohim “breath of God”) which He breathed upon the Church at her creation prior to the inherent disunity and chaos of Gnostic claims.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
It's the real message...
The "holy church" drove the Gnostics, Cathars and a host of other truth tellers underground because the "holy church" wanted people to remain in spiritual darkness.

Gnosticism made the proclamation of faith an assertion of knowledge which, unavailable to all, countered the divine commission to bring people to Christ by Baptism. Gnosticism was a direct contradiction to the Mystical Body of Christ by fragmenting its baptismal nature and openness to all people. It’s why the Church today persists in its contradiction of modern sensibilities which commodify the weak and vulnerable as disposable.
(cont. ...)

(...cont.)

Originally posted by IvanZana
ANother thing that catholicism contradicts is the ancient teachings is that they convince you that you need beads and to repeat chants or that you are powerless and need a priest to talk to god for you

The Church does not dogmatically command the use of the rosary. Whilst watching Catholics pass those mysterious beads through their fingers may confuse a quick glance into their hearts and souls will show that they are reflecting on the Mysteries of the Rosary, the setting out of the life, death and resurrection of Christ at best, at worse it manifests the believers desire to set aside some time of their day to communicate with God. The rosary is pedagogic and meditative. The physical beads are a means of involving the whole person in the act of prayer (as is all that kneeling, standing, sitting of the Mass) and also a good aide memoire.

Originally posted by ghaleon12
About gnosticism being "secret", a large part of that was probably because they'd get killed if they practiced in openly. I've heard that Kabbalah went sort of underground for a long time until society was ready for its wisdom, and I think by "ready" they mean "will not hit us with sticks" lol. Although, you still see that in some of the middle eastern countries but that's another topic.

Christianity, the Church, has a martyrology which is full of those who knew they would get killed if they practiced their faith openly, so, they did. From the earliest days of the Church to Iraq today.
Many Gnostic sects quite enjoyed hitting themselves with sticks in response to their Manichaean tendencies (described in some posts here) that seeks to distinguish two creative forces, one for the material, one for the spiritual. Actions not of “self-mortification” in intent but of rejection of the flesh, one of many contradictions of the Incarnation proposed by Gnosticism.

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
Could it not be that these text have surfaced in a time that was ready for them, a time that needed them?

I’m sure the devil is quite delighted these texts have re-appeared because this is indeed a time that is ready for them. Moral relativism, the commodification of people, the pursuit of physical perfection, the rejection of the physically imperfect - all fertile soil for the regrowth of these perennial weeds of heresy.


[PS, I'm up for a debate if you would like to Lucid?]

if heaven is 'within' and then is outside one's self, as Jesus the Christ said... that is a Gnostic message,

the early Christian cult was deemed a cult of mystical swooners that practiced Magic rites & thought... as far as the Romans were concerned.


If you think that the historical writings, texts can lead one to divine if Jesus had Gnostic leanings... your on a circular quest....
the Church powers have fashioned the Christ, Jesus, image to their own ends, and have what remains of all obscure writings as 'proof' of their spin on the life/times/character of the Christ.

~Unless another cache of ancient, previously undiscovered scrolls are unearthed, we have only the one sided vingette of the Christ character and the church built around his personna. ~
and that condition of 'proof & fact'... is not empiracle, truthful evidence... it's only subjective material

This is easy to answer. Gnosticism is the only true way, it is the only one that really provides and focuses on understanding.

All during the bible, Jesus had trouble with the leaders of the time, the pharisees.

www.answers.com...

Pharisee
n.
1. A member of an ancient Jewish sect that emphasized strict interpretation and observance of the Mosaic law in both its oral and written form.
2. A hypocritically self-righteous person.

They would try to get Jesus to follow the strict interpretation, and repeatedly he called them hypocrites, and instead tried to give them understanding. He tells people he did not come to change the law, but to fulfill it(provide understanding of it).

And thus, today's pharisee's are found in the church. How like then, today hold the power and Jesus tells his disciples, they will pull you into their synagogues(churches of the time) and have the literal word used against them, but not to worry because the holy spirit/god will be speaking for you.

You will know them by their fruits we are told. Where have those with understanding done evil in the world? As noted, they have been crushed many times because they followed what was told. What do you think the spanish inquisition was about? making sure everyone believed as the powers that be told them too. To submit to authority while Jesus told them they were the authority, not those who wrote the books and such.

It doesn't matter what order things came in, or whenever. This question is answered in the story of Jesus many times over. And just like the pharisees of then, the modern christians of today would dismiss Jesus if he didn't follow the bibles exact words as heresy.


[edit on 22-11-2008 by badmedia]

reply to post by Supercertari



Why would your Holy Mother Church burn the Gnostic texts as well as the Gnostics?

I do not mean that in a flaming way, just a honest question from reading History. Even the last Pope apologized for it.

So I would not view anybody who burns books and people as Holy in any sense of the word.

What is worse, than just killing is killing in the name of God. How in the world can a organization have a rule that states ..Do not kill....yet still have the blood of so many on its hands.

The tree is known by its fruit.

reply to post by LeoVirgo

My dear daughter:

I do agree with most of the gnostic scripts. They are beautiful writings and I find they make my spirit sing. So yes, some of them do resinate with my spirit also. I have always seen God as a loving and merciful God. I have never really seen him as a God that is full of hate and wrath. I still don't

Now, where you and I have our main point of disagreement is the fact that Christ was the prefect blood sacrifice. That is the reason that Jesus had to die. To be our atonement before his Father to cover our sins. If this was not the reason for his death.....what was it and why have all four gospels talk about his needing to die. In 1 Peter 2:24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of you souls.

In I John 1:7/but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son purifies us from all sin. i John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not just ours but also fir the sins of the whole world. In 1 John 2:27 As for you, the anointing (Holy Spirit) you received from him remains in you are you do not need anyone to teach you. But as the anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit - just as is as taught you, remains in him.

Now, I choose to believe not know that what Peter and John makes sense to me and it sits well within my spirit.

I feel that God did send us his only Son into this world that we would have life through him. That God loved us soooo much that he sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. There is no fear in love. So I did not come to God out of fear. I knew he loved me when I was 8 years old. From that moment on I was always in his presence. I can thank my grandma for that. She told me about Jesus and his love and would rock me and sing hymns to me. As a child I had fellowship with him and always felt his love with me. Never fear!

I do not believe that our soul keeps recycling until we get it right I think that all the gospels talk about staying firm in our faith and love for each other I believe when we become saved the Holy Spirit comes to live within us and helps us live a life not being control by the world and to not think on worldly things but on heavenly things. It is like you said we must weigh what we read and take in to account where our source comes from. I agree with a lot of the gnostic texts but I also come back to the Scriptures for more of what resinates in my spirit. I think the gnostic texts should have been included in the bible.

I know we all come to the Creator out of love and indewelling of the spirit. Jesus came to show us the great love of the Father and his mercy and grace. When you feel that love there is not sweeter song in your heart. It reaches to heaven and the angels. Was Jesus a gnostic? Some of what he teaches could be said to be that - but does it really matter? Isn't the most important thing that we come to him and become one with him. And his love shines through our eyes. That he fills every part of ourselves that we are him. That is what I believe we are to reach for. It is surely joy unspeakable and it is certainly filled with glory.

Peace,
Mom

reply to post by LeoVirgo


Sweetheart:

I in no way meant it as a judgement about John's soul. I believe that he was a very spiritual minded person and was always seeking enlightment in his life. Yes, there was a lot of darkness in his life but I to always believe that God is reaching out to us even until our last breath.


I am sorry you thought that. I am hurt that you would think that I would be the judging about someone.

Love ya,
Mom

reply to post by Merle8


Merle8

I too have this wonderful experience and It gets sweeter and more heavenly each time I come into fellowship with my Father's Spirit then we become one. I do not consider this an experience that is only for "gnostic" believers.

I have been a Christian over 30 years and each time I come before the throne of the Father it is still a most humbling experience. To feel such love, being covered in sweetness and hearing the angels sing sweet songs. It is truly something that is hard to explain to another but I feel all seekers of the Father who have the Holy Spirit within them can reach that goal.


Peace in our Lord Christ Jesus,
Grandma

reply to post by LeoVirgo


Hey,

No other words could say it better. It is our daily walk with the Father where we are taken in his hands and like a pebble that skips across the water he uses us to ripple the water here on the earth. If God lives in us then the world does not know us and we become one with the spirit of God. If we come with a humbled heart, mind, body and soul he will put a song in your heart that only you and he understand, but it soars each time you are in his holy presence and reaches to the angels in heaven. If but others when looking upon us can see Christ in our eyes........that is what I am reaching for each and every day and no sweeter fellowship is there then becoming one with Him.



Love,
Mom

reply to post by LeoVirgo


Hi,

If Jesus would of ever talked about reincarnation....OH MY, Im sure we can all imagine how the people reacted to that one.

I think he did in the sense that it was such common knowledge and accepted. Reference: Matthew 16:13-14

Surely he would have spoken against it, as was his custom, if it contradicted what Our Father wanted known.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by Grandma
Now, I sometimes wonder if maybe Moses got a little carried away with himself and did some things he should not have by the name of God.

Well, from my understanding, both Moses and Paul were the equivalent of what we would consider "hitmen." Supposedly, God forgave them and made them his "prophets."

[edit on 21-11-2008 by SpeakerofTruth]

Well from what I understand with Moses is he killed someone by an accident and he covered it up instead of taking personal responsibility. Paul was a killer though. I could be wrong but I don't think he even apologized ever. He changed his ways and became a fundie Christian.