Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt01461)

You wrote:

"Gnosticism is a word originally coined by an Ante Nicene church 
father named Irenaeus. Though Irenaeus never never defined his term, 
it is evident by his usage that he meant the term to denote certain 
Christian communities, particularly those in Lyon France (Gaul), who 
had beliefs which differed from his own. Essentially he used the 
word Gnosticism as the opposite of Catholicism, which was the 
Christian community which he belonged.  The coined word was a 
literary way to distinguish the right beliefs (his) from the wrong 
beliefs (theirs)."

In effect then, the historical usage of the word 'gnosticism' is but 
another euphemism, at least in this context.  A nice word (even 
biblically derived) to condemn people for their faith from ancient 
times.

"He did say, however, that all of these "gnostic" communities 
derived their teaching from Simon Magus. This, of course, is utter 
nonsense.  But what I think he was really trying to say was that 
Gnosticism comes from the Devil and Catholicism comes from God."

I'm not aware of who Simon Magus is, although I've heard the name 
somewhere before.

"Therefore, this is a good example as to why it is not a good idea 
to consult a Christian source to define gnosis.   It is kind of like 
asking a Turk to define an Armenian, or a NAZI to define a Jew.  As 
a Turkish representative once candidly explained the reason for 
exterminating the Armenians:  It is not because they are guilty of 
what the believe or what they did, but who they are."

I just always went with the biblical use of the word "gnosis".  
That's why I couldn't understand why Christians always have a 
problem with gnosticism.

"You are quite right that the word gnosis is found in the New 
Testament, and its standardized meaning is "to know."  But the 
object of that knowledge does not necessarily have to be "God.""

I forget exactly where the word gnosis appears in the Bible, so 
maybe I was just assuming that the context referred to 'GOD'.  And I 
was probably thinking of the word 'Logos' too, which appears in the 
first chapter of the gospel of John, but that's a bit different.  
And then there's the word 'Rema' too.  A friend of mine who was 
fluent with biblical Greek had shared these words extensively with 
me many years ago, but my memory is a bit stuffy now.

"Another problem, I mentioned before, is the inherent difficulty of 
translating an ancient language like Greek into a modern one like 
English.  One usually ends up with several possible words, each one 
expressing approximately the meaning of the term, but none does so 
exactly.  Though "knowledge" is, as far as it goes, an acceptable 
translation (the one preferred by theologians) for gnosis,  there 
are other words which  more closely reflects its meaning, such 
as "enlightenment."  Better yet would be to define it as "perfect 
knowledge of both the heart and the head."  That definition, though 
wordy, would take us closer to the spirit of the meaning."

So 'gnosis' would more exactly mean 'enlightenment' then.  Perhaps 
spiritual, metaphysical or mystical enlightenment, according to 
context?  Although not necessarily constituting knowledge of a 
singular cosmological supergod (omniscient, omnipotent, omnopresent) 
in both context of existence of such or relationship with such.

"Now, as I said, the Valentinian and Sethian schools, as well as the 
non-Christian neo-Platonists (As opposed to someone like Clement of 
Alexandria was a Christian neo-Platonist) did not believe in a God 
that is knowable.  So, obviously, they (unlike the Roman Church who 
professed a knowable and a personal God) did not apply gnosis to 
God.  Rather, their gnosis concerned the Gnostic's epinoia 
("insight" or "wisdom") which brings the gnosis (spiritual 
awakening) to the Christ (Christos), who, is not Jesus."

I believe that we are each spiritually immortal ghosts, each 
possessing the potential for physical immortality as well.  Would 
this be related in some way?

"Jesus was a person, while Christ (in Gnosticism) is the "Son" i.e., 
the second part of the trinity.  The Christ is "God's only begotten 
Son"  the Gnostic scriptures say, and the writer of the Gospel of 
John borrowed.  The Christ is the first Divine Thought, from which 
came the Word (Logos), and through which we gain the realization 
(Gnosis) of Christ, brought to us by Jesus, who was sent by God.  I 
hope this helps."

I understand the differentiation between Jesus the man and the 
Christ-consciousness, although there are disputes about what the 
Christ actually is.  I believe that Jesus acted specifically as the 
Messiah to the Jews, but this was eventually extended by Paul and 
other evangelists to the Gentile world as well.

My perception of Jesus is that he was a mortal who was subsequently 
resurrected unto physical immortality, afterwhich shifting his 
physically resurrected body into an energy state through bodily self-
mastery, and thereby dimensionally ascending into the heavens.  
Enoch and Elijah did this as well, although bypassing the deathly 
crucifixion stage.

I believe this physically immortal potential effectively exists 
within the DNA of every human being who has ever lived or will live, 
and eventually the entire human species will catch up to this level 
of physically immortal development, at the completion of one of it's 
evolutionary cycles.

Nonetheless, I consider myself to be agnostic in the sense that I do 
not believe that a singular cosmological supergod (omniscient, 
omnipotent, omnipresent) can be cognized, either in the context of 
existence or relationship, by mortal minds which are bound by space 
and time.

Blessings

Vince

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@...> 
wrote:
>
> Dear Vince,
> 
> Gnosticism is a word originally coined by an Ante Nicene church 
father 
> named Irenaeus. Though Irenaeus never never defined his term, it 
is 
> evident by his usage that he meant the term to denote certain 
Christian 
> communities, particularly those in Lyon France (Gaul), who had 
beliefs 
> which differed from his own. Essentially he used the word 
Gnosticism as 
> the opposite of Catholicism, which was the Christian community 
which he 
> belonged.  The coined word was a literary way to distinguish the 
right 
> beliefs (his) from the wrong beliefs (theirs).  He did say, 
however, 
> that all of these "gnostic" communities derived their teaching 
from 
> Simon Magus. This, of course, is utter nonsense.  But what I think 
he 
> was really trying to say was that Gnosticism comes from the Devil 
and 
> Catholicism comes from God. 
> 
>  Therefore, this is a good example as to why it is not a good idea 
to 
> consult a Christian source to define gnosis.   It is kind of like 
asking 
> a Turk to define an Armenian, or a NAZI to define a Jew.  As a 
Turkish 
> representative once candidly explained the reason for 
exterminating the 
> Armenians:  It is not because they are guilty of what the believe 
or 
> what they did, but who they are.
> 
> You are quite right that the word gnosis is found in the New 
Testament, 
> and its standardized meaning is "to know."  But the object of that 
> knowledge does not necessarily have to be "God."
> 
> Another problem, I mentioned before, is the inherent difficulty of 
> translating an ancient language like Greek into a modern one like 
> English.  One usually ends up with several possible words, each 
one 
> expressing approximately the meaning of the term, but none does so 
> exactly.   Though "knowledge" is, as far as it goes, an acceptable 
> translation (the one preferred by theologians) for gnosis,  there 
are 
> other words which  more closely reflects its meaning, such as 
> "enlightenment."  Better yet would be to define it as "perfect 
knowledge 
> of both the heart and the head."  That definition, though wordy, 
would 
> take us closer to the spirit of the meaning. 
> 
> Now, as I said, the Valentinian and Sethian schools, as well as 
the 
> non-Christian neo-Platonists (As opposed to someone like Clement 
of 
> Alexandria was a Christian neo-Platonist) did not believe in a God 
that 
> is knowable.  So, obviously, they (unlike the Roman Church who 
professed 
> a knowable and a personal God) did not apply gnosis to God.  
Rather, 
> their gnosis concerned the Gnostic's epinoia ("insight" 
or "wisdom") 
> which brings the gnosis (spiritual awakening) to the Christ 
(Christos), 
> who, is not Jesus. Jesus was a person, while Christ (in 
Gnosticism) is 
> the "Son" i.e., the second part of the trinity.  The Christ 
is "God's 
> only begotten Son"  the Gnostic scriptures say, and the writer of 
the 
> Gospel of John borrowed.  The Christ is the first Divine Thought, 
from 
> which came the Word (Logos), and through which we gain the 
realization 
> (Gnosis) of Christ, brought to us by Jesus, who was sent by God.
> 
> I hope this helps. 
> 
> Best
> Jerry