Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt01494)

You wrote:

"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."

Do you then believe that gnosticism is a false belief?  It's my 
understanding that the Unitarian perspective welcomes different 
beliefs.  Or do you rather believe that gnosticism is good?

"See Acts 8:9-24"

Okay.  Here it is.

Acts 8 
 9 Now there was a man named Simon, who formerly was practicing 
magic in the city and astonishing the people of Samaria, claiming to 
be someone great; 
 10 and they all, from smallest to greatest, were giving attention 
to him, saying, "This man is what is called the Great Power of God." 
 11 And they were giving him attention because he had for a long 
time astonished them with his magic arts. 
 (NAS95)

Acts 8 
 18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the 
laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money, 
 19 saying, "Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone on 
whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit." 
 20 But Peter said to him, "May your silver perish with you, because 
you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! 
 21 "You have no part or portion in this matter, for your heart is 
not right before God. 
 22 "Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord 
that, if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you. 
 23 "For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the 
bondage of iniquity." 
 24 But Simon answered and said, "Pray to the Lord for me 
yourselves, so that nothing of what you have said may come upon me." 
 (NAS95)

So you're saying that gnosticism originated from Simon Magus in the 
Bible?  Gnosticism is evil in your perspective?  Or are you rather 
referring to mysticism as opposed to gnosticism?

"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."

In what specific way(s) do you believe that the Christ is knowable?  
And who specifically are you referring to when you mention the 
trinity?  Who or what is the trinity in your perspective?

"No.  The resurrection into physical bodies is a theological 
interpretation of a chapter in Ezekiel.  Not all Jews believed in 
physical immortality either."

How about yourself?  Do you believe in physical immortality?  Let's 
take Jesus, for example.

"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."

In what way are you differentiating between mysticism and 
gnosticism, if any?  Aren't they virtually the same thing, or at 
least intricately interrelated?

"A typical Pauline idea which became a corner stone of modern 
theology."

I agree.

"An interesting mix of Evangelical theology and New Ageism."

Indeed.

"A belief that many Gnostic groups shared."

So I am both gnostic and agnostic then, depending on context?

Blessings

Vince

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@...> 
wrote:
>
> Dear Vince,
> 
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
>