posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 09:23 PM
Geez, you guys, stop arguing about me behind my back, lol.
I agree with Akragon that it's difficult to claim to have an expertise in Gnosticism, outside of scholarly circles (I'd call Ehrman an expert, as
well as Elaine Pagels, though I disagree with both of them, a lot, lol.) So I would scarcely call myself an expert, given that I'm an engineer,
rather than a historian (counter to my academic training, which was, in part, in History.)
But I haven't run across anyone on ATS who has whizzed away as much of their lives on the Gnostics as I have, in all aspects, whether their writings,
their opponents', modern day proponents and the general history that surrounds early Christian heresy, so NOTurTypical has a point, as well.
Truth be told, I spent a lot of time on them, as well as Platonism, because at that point in my life, I wanted them to be right. I really thought that
I'd stumbled onto something, so ever more was my disappointment when, after sufficient research, I realized that the Christian Gnostics (at least)
couldn't possibly be correct. Not "oh, it's one option of many..." or "well, if it worked out this way..." -- they couldn't possibly be
Christian Gnosticism stems from the ever so common attempt to hijack the person of Jesus Christ and insert him into a milieu in which he cannot
possibly exist, because he lends credibility to non-credible issues. We can see it throughout the ages after the initial growth of Christianity, up to
today, when various politicians claim that Jesus would be in their corner, as opposed to their opponent, despite the fact that, by the text, he'd
likely side with neither and chew them both out.
The problem is that it begins with the Bible -- that's where the first documents associated with Christ appear. Historical evidence shows a very
clear progression out from there to the documents that were written a hundred or more years later and simply recycled the characters from the most
popular spiritual text of the time, repurposing them to the promotion of theology and philosophy that they couldn't possibly have supported.
Any reasonable view of Christ, in my opinion, must be rooted in the Bible, because there is a sufficient gap between those writings and the follow-ons
that the fictionalization of him, and his acts, cannot help but be assumed. If a document emerges which is in significant divergence from the
canonical texts, it cannot be reasonably accepted as a valid text.