Re: Theos-World Jerry- Agnostics defined
Mar 25, 2006 01:27 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
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.
I think Irenaeus meant the word as a perjorative (as opposed to
"euphemism) in order to warn people away from Christian groups with
"false" beliefs. The word "gnosis" is derived from the Greek language
and is also used in Gnostic scriptures. It is not clear whether he took
the word from his canonical scriptures, gnostic scriptures, or pulled
the word out of his head, since he wrote in Greek anyway.
I'm not aware of who Simon Magus is, although I've heard the name
somewhere before.
See Acts 8:9-24
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.
Right. Since the Gnostics we have been discussing did not believe in an
ultimate God that was knowable, their writings would only respectfully
mention God's existence with epithets, such as "The Source of
All";"FATHER";"Monad" etc. However, the Christ, which is part of the
trinity, is knowable and Jesus taught his disciples to know the Christ,
so that they will be with Him in heaven.
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?
No. The resurrection into physical bodies is a theological
interpretation of a chapter in Ezekiel. Not all Jews believed in
physical immortality either.
I understand the differentiation between Jesus the man and the
Christ-consciousness, although there are disputes about what the
Christ actually is.
"Christ-consciousness" is a word that comes from Christian mysticism.
The Gnostics we were discussion used the word "Christos" to denote the
second person in the Trinity--the Son, in modern Christianity.
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.
A typical Pauline idea which became a corner stone of modern theology.
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.
An interesting mix of Evangelical theology and New Ageism.
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.
A belief that many Gnostic groups shared.
Best,
Jerry
.
Vincent wrote:
Jerry-
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
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
