I would like to remind those that are interested in gnosticism as a whole, that there are many variant forms of gnosticism. Many on the internet only post the valentinian theology as if it were the only form of gnosticism. This is misleading at best.
While neo-valentinian gnosticism seems to be the choice for many today, this may only be the case because it is the easiest form to reconcile with their former Roman Catholic beliefs and its rites. It is therefore a matter of comfortability. As was stated "Catholic on the outside, Buddhist on the inside. Quotes a lot of dead Greek guys." This simply is not true of all.
The kind of gnosis written about within the thomasine texts are devoid of the strange cosmologies written by valentinians. Its theories and resultant methods are completely antithetical to Roman Catholicism. This cannot be said of all neo-gnosticism or the neo-gnostic churches extant.
Ah, but I am speaking here (and throughout this blog) of "big G" Gnosticism, particularly Traditional (1890 Restorationist) and Apostolic Gnosticism, and not of neo-gnosticism (ghastly term) at all.
To say that the Thomasine texts are anti-thetical to Roman Catholicism may be partially true, but also entirely non sequiter.
I maintain that the Big G Ecclesiastical Gnostics *tend* to come in one of three flavours; Christian, Hermetic, and Sophianic. But each of those forms share a common ethical framework, ecclesiology, and heritage.
I am very resonant with looking for the Divine within. My spiritual path sees this as consciousness becoming more and more conscious, moving from subconsciousness to superconsciousness. I wonder if the Demiurge and the Archons are entities of consciousness in error, but very capable of rectifying that error through evolution of consciousness. I must say, as a lapsed Roman Catholic, the idea that the God of the OT may be a "Half-Maker" makes me cringe even though there are many parts of the OT that I do not care to dwell upon as they are difficult concepts about God to accept. A case in point is the injunction to Abraham that he sacrifice his only son, Isaac, just to see how obedient he is. Yikes!
Some (notably, Freke & Gandy) have equated Christ as our essential identity and the Demiurge (Samael, Ialdabaoth, OT Jehovah, etc.) as the Ego - who takes the credit for the creation and cannot possibly fathom the Stillness/Depth. In our lives, we keep making the mistake of focusing on the interior monologue as "Me", lulling ourselves into the belief that this "Me" is the Doer. So, this interpretation of who the Demiurge is may be an alternative to trying to fit or somehow alter previous God-concepts to fit the Gnostic worldview. Just my 2 cents...What do I know anyway...
Gnosticism is a new concept in Africa. The Episcopal Baptist Church, Gnostic and Theosophical is bringing this to the awareness of the people of Africa. We are Christian gnostics and are interested in spreading gnosticism in the continent. It will be appreciated if you explain Christian gnosticism and its doctrine vis-vis the current understanding of Christic teachings. We are Christ centred.
I have arrived at the opinion that there is no need for an intermediary or ombudsman when it comes to the contemplation of the Devine, but I’m not sure this necessitates a rejection of the act of faith. The articles and trappings of faith offer no benefit other than to keep the guilty feeling guilty to a level of their own self satisfaction. However, my suspicion is that the act of faith or being faithful is a different situation or, more properly, condition.
Virtually every major religion, philosophy and knowledge system includes some form of meditation, prayer or, as above, contemplation. These would appear to be, in some sense, acts of faith. They would not have evolved if they served absolutely no purpose. I believe they are exercises to place the human body, mind and spirit into a state of consciousness, or faithfulness, which offers the potential for greater understanding and comprehension.
I just wanted to thank you for this post. I'm a constant seeker and student - a Heinz 57 of beliefs for lack of a better term. I've been studying gnosticism and your post helped me form at least a basic overview from which I can delve more deeply.
Thank you for the time and effort you've put into your blog, it's appreciated very much.
Personally, I feel no need to water down the archon/demiurge story as a "myth"; especially if one doesn't qualify this with the statement that the bible, especially the old testament, is entirely mythical.
And I feel no need to "categorize" gnostics in this fashion. If you must categorize, chalk me down as a "Lashian gnostic"; I would urge any readers of this blog to head to metahistory.org and study John Lash and his research.
p.s. I also find "christian gnosticism" to be a tautological phrase - like a "round square"....go figure.
Few people realize that into the 5th century the name “Chrestos” was widely used, instead of “Christos.” In some cases, NHC scholars are uncertain if XRS means Chrestos or Christos, but the average reader never hears about such nuances. In any case, these names did not indicate to Gnostics what we today understand by Christ. Chrestos, “the good one, benefactor,” was the generic name for the avatar expected to come in the Piscean Age. This expectation was held by many people of non-Christian orientation. Christos in Gnostic teachings is a god or Aeon of the Pleroma who does not incarnate in human form. Gnostics denied the divinity of Jesus. The Gnostic Christos is not Jesus Christ as understood in Pauline and Johannine theology.
As for the historical Jesus, we are diving into another vat of worms. The claim I make is twofold. First, as just noted, Gnostics understood Christos/Chrestos in ways that cannot be equated with the Christ of orthodox doctrine. Second, allusions to Jesus in Gnostic writings cannot be read as straightforward references to the Jesus character in the New Testament. The entire issue is a terrible mess, of course, and you are right in asking what is the point of all this quibbling. To me the important thing is that we allow that Gnostic materials are not merely out takes of the Cecil B. DeMille blockbuster called “The New Testament”: they are glimpses of a completely different movie. Gnostics denied that Jesus or anyone else could be the single and exclusive embodiment of the Divine.
The first thing we have to understand is that many early Christians WERE Gnostics, and that those teachers who made the biggest contribution to Gnosticism WERE Christian. Valentinus was as Christian as the Pope. The uber-Catholic Clement of Alexandria called himself a Gnostic and said that Gnosis was in fact the entire POINT of Christianity.
John Lash believes the Archons are actual shape shifting space reptiles. There is no academic confusion between the words "Chrestos" and "Christos" as he invents. This is total nonsense.
"Gnostics denied the divinity of Jesus."
Overwhelmingly Gnosticism EMBRACED the divinity of Jesus, but questioned his humanity. That's the historical record. That's not my particular *thing*, but it's a reality you can acknowledge and get into or acknowledge and move on.
Lash's Gnosticism has nothing to do with Gnosticism as a symbolic language, textual reality, or spiritual movement until John Lash came along. Nothing.
There is no "research" in Lash's work. He's L. Ron Hubbard. How *would* you go about researching telephathic alien space reptiles, exactly?
"Round square" - Almost ALL Gnostic figures in history, even modern history, were also Christian. PKD was Christian. Blake was Christian. Valentinus was Christian. Doinel, Encausse, Ambelain. Almost ALL the non-Christian Gnostic figures are PRE-Christian Gnostic figures.
If Lash's "work" is Gnostic, then NONE of historical Gnosticism is Gnostic, the Nag Hammadi texts are not Gnostic. The Pistis Sophia is not Gnostic.
Thank you for your web site, I am interested in meeting and discussion Gnositc belief and views with others. Is there a study group, a discussion group or community gathering in Victoria, BC.
12 comments:
I would like to remind those that are interested in gnosticism as a whole, that there are many variant forms of gnosticism. Many on the internet only post the valentinian theology as if it were the only form of gnosticism. This is misleading at best.
While neo-valentinian gnosticism seems to be the choice for many today, this may only be the case because it is the easiest form to reconcile with their former Roman Catholic beliefs and its rites. It is therefore a matter of comfortability. As was stated "Catholic on the outside, Buddhist on the inside. Quotes a lot of dead Greek guys." This simply is not true of all.
The kind of gnosis written about within the thomasine texts are devoid of the strange cosmologies written by valentinians. Its theories and resultant methods are completely antithetical to Roman Catholicism. This cannot be said of all neo-gnosticism or the neo-gnostic churches extant.
Ah, but I am speaking here (and throughout this blog) of "big G" Gnosticism, particularly Traditional (1890 Restorationist) and Apostolic Gnosticism, and not of neo-gnosticism (ghastly term) at all.
To say that the Thomasine texts are anti-thetical to Roman Catholicism may be partially true, but also entirely non sequiter.
I maintain that the Big G Ecclesiastical Gnostics *tend* to come in one of three flavours; Christian, Hermetic, and Sophianic. But each of those forms share a common ethical framework, ecclesiology, and heritage.
I am very resonant with looking for the Divine within. My spiritual path sees this as consciousness becoming more and more conscious, moving from subconsciousness to superconsciousness. I wonder if the Demiurge and the Archons are entities of consciousness in error, but very capable of rectifying that error through evolution of consciousness. I must say, as a lapsed Roman Catholic, the idea that the God of the OT may be a "Half-Maker" makes me cringe even though there are many parts of the OT that I do not care to dwell upon as they are difficult concepts about God to accept. A case in point is the injunction to Abraham that he sacrifice his only son, Isaac, just to see how obedient he is. Yikes!
Some (notably, Freke & Gandy) have equated Christ as our essential identity and the Demiurge (Samael, Ialdabaoth, OT Jehovah, etc.) as the Ego - who takes the credit for the creation and cannot possibly fathom the Stillness/Depth.
In our lives, we keep making the mistake of focusing on the interior monologue as "Me", lulling ourselves into the belief that this "Me" is the Doer.
So, this interpretation of who the Demiurge is may be an alternative to trying to fit or somehow alter previous God-concepts to fit the Gnostic worldview.
Just my 2 cents...What do I know anyway...
Gnosticism is a new concept in Africa. The Episcopal Baptist Church, Gnostic and Theosophical is bringing this to the awareness of the people of Africa. We are Christian gnostics and are interested in spreading gnosticism in the continent. It will be appreciated if you explain Christian gnosticism and its doctrine vis-vis the current understanding of Christic teachings. We are Christ centred.
I have arrived at the opinion that there is no need for an intermediary or ombudsman when it comes to the contemplation of the Devine, but I’m not sure this necessitates a rejection of the act of faith. The articles and trappings of faith offer no benefit other than to keep the guilty feeling guilty to a level of their own self satisfaction. However, my suspicion is that the act of faith or being faithful is a different situation or, more properly, condition.
Virtually every major religion, philosophy and knowledge system includes some form of meditation, prayer or, as above, contemplation. These would appear to be, in some sense, acts of faith. They would not have evolved if they served absolutely no purpose. I believe they are exercises to place the human body, mind and spirit into a state of consciousness, or faithfulness, which offers the potential for greater understanding and comprehension.
I just wanted to thank you for this post. I'm a constant seeker and student - a Heinz 57 of beliefs for lack of a better term. I've been studying gnosticism and your post helped me form at least a basic overview from which I can delve more deeply.
Thank you for the time and effort you've put into your blog, it's appreciated very much.
Personally, I feel no need to water down the archon/demiurge story as a "myth"; especially if one doesn't qualify this with the statement that the bible, especially the old testament, is entirely mythical.
And I feel no need to "categorize" gnostics in this fashion. If you must categorize, chalk me down as a "Lashian gnostic"; I would urge any readers of this blog to head to metahistory.org and study John Lash and his research.
p.s. I also find "christian gnosticism" to be a tautological phrase - like a "round square"....go figure.
Few people realize that into the 5th century the name “Chrestos” was widely used, instead of “Christos.” In some cases, NHC scholars are uncertain if XRS means Chrestos or Christos, but the average reader never hears about such nuances. In any case, these names did not indicate to Gnostics what we today understand by Christ. Chrestos, “the good one, benefactor,” was the generic name for the avatar expected to come in the Piscean Age. This expectation was held by many people of non-Christian orientation. Christos in Gnostic teachings is a god or Aeon of the Pleroma who does not incarnate in human form. Gnostics denied the divinity of Jesus. The Gnostic Christos is not Jesus Christ as understood in Pauline and Johannine theology.
As for the historical Jesus, we are diving into another vat of worms. The claim I make is twofold. First, as just noted, Gnostics understood Christos/Chrestos in ways that cannot be equated with the Christ of orthodox doctrine. Second, allusions to Jesus in Gnostic writings cannot be read as straightforward references to the Jesus character in the New Testament. The entire issue is a terrible mess, of course, and you are right in asking what is the point of all this quibbling. To me the important thing is that we allow that Gnostic materials are not merely out takes of the Cecil B. DeMille blockbuster called “The New Testament”: they are glimpses of a completely different movie. Gnostics denied that Jesus or anyone else could be the single and exclusive embodiment of the Divine.
John Lash (interview)
The first thing we have to understand is that many early Christians WERE Gnostics, and that those teachers who made the biggest contribution to Gnosticism WERE Christian. Valentinus was as Christian as the Pope. The uber-Catholic Clement of Alexandria called himself a Gnostic and said that Gnosis was in fact the entire POINT of Christianity.
John Lash believes the Archons are actual shape shifting space reptiles. There is no academic confusion between the words "Chrestos" and "Christos" as he invents. This is total nonsense.
"Gnostics denied the divinity of Jesus."
Overwhelmingly Gnosticism EMBRACED the divinity of Jesus, but questioned his humanity. That's the historical record. That's not my particular *thing*, but it's a reality you can acknowledge and get into or acknowledge and move on.
Lash's Gnosticism has nothing to do with Gnosticism as a symbolic language, textual reality, or spiritual movement until John Lash came along. Nothing.
There is no "research" in Lash's work. He's L. Ron Hubbard. How *would* you go about researching telephathic alien space reptiles, exactly?
"Round square" - Almost ALL Gnostic figures in history, even modern history, were also Christian. PKD was Christian. Blake was Christian. Valentinus was Christian. Doinel, Encausse, Ambelain. Almost ALL the non-Christian Gnostic figures are PRE-Christian Gnostic figures.
If Lash's "work" is Gnostic, then NONE of historical Gnosticism is Gnostic, the Nag Hammadi texts are not Gnostic. The Pistis Sophia is not Gnostic.
Talk about your round square.
Thank you for your web site, I am interested in meeting and discussion Gnositc belief and views with others. Is there a study group, a discussion group or community gathering in Victoria, BC.
Absolutely. E-mail me at jordan@johannite.org and I'll put you on the parish list and you'll be notified about the next event.
Post a Comment