- "We don't need to take the Gospel of Judas / Thomas / Mary seriously, because unlike Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, it wasn't written in the first century, wasn't written by eyewitnesses and is not historically true. It was written by an elitist world-hating sect called the Gnostics who were rejected by early Christians as heretics. Gnostics preached that the flesh was evil, and salvation was only available to a select few who had secret magical knowledge, or gnosis."
- – Every bible "expert" in the western world in the last three weeks.
I've read variations on this spiel at least twenty times this month. The problem is that this summation of Gnosticism is entirely false, and in many cases known by its proponents as false; this is bearing false witness.
1) Gnosticism is not a heretical sect of Christianity
Gnosticism is a distinct, pre-Christian religion. Its roots are in Alexandria in Egypt, about 2200 years ago, where a "café-society" of Greek-speaking and -educated Jews were syncretizing the myths of the ancient world with Judaism and classical Greek philosophy.
These communities and their ideas greatly influenced Christianity as it later emerged. As Christianity struggled in its first four centuries to distinguish itself from the pagan world, it slowly began to reject some of these Gnostic influences. But most of the people who still favoured these ideas considered themselves devout Christians, not heretics.
Let us not forget that the most common topic in the New Testament – more common than the power of love or redemption or the sacrfice of the cross or even the divinity of Jesus – is that "other Christians are getting it wrong". Paul condemns James as a heretic. Jesus refers to Peter as "Satan".
2) Gnosticism is a lot like Buddhism
Because of Gnosticism's insistence on personal responsibility and ethics, its emphasis on singular prayer, the practice of compassion, detachment from materialism and the striving for enlightenment, it has been called "the Buddhism of the West". The similarities between Gnosticism and Mahayana Buddhism are so strong it has been speculated that there may have been ongoing contact between the two religions.
3) The Gnostic Scriptures are, for the most part, contemporary with Christian canon
None of the four canonical Gospels were written in the first century. Mark was not written by Mark, nor Luke written by Luke. John was written in two distinct phases, the first of which showed significant Gnostic elements, and the latter a retraction and condemnation of those elements. These were based on first century oral traditions which varied greatly from region to region, but did not exist in written form until at least 100 years after the events they describe. Paul is the only first century Christian writer we have, and much of his writings were edited centuries later into the form we have today.
The Gospel of Thomas, for example, is contemporary with the later half of John, and there is some evidence to support that John's later editors were familiar with Thomas. The scriptural authors of the second century were reaching for meaning, using their interpretation what they had heard, their intuition, their creativity, and their yearning for G@d.
4) Gnostics do not hate the physical world
Gnostic scripture frequently invokes favourably the beauty and power of the natural world; the symbolism of pregnancy, midwifery, childbirth, newborns, storms and ripe crops are frequently employed by Gnostic authors. Gnostics do not view the flesh as evil, but rather as temporary when contrasted with the immortality of the soul - a view shared by most if not all Christians.
What Gnostics reject is not the earth, but they system: the artificial world of injustice, prejudice, institutionalization and materialism.
5) Gnostics do not repudiate salvation through Grace
The role of Grace, and of the Holy Spirit, is of paramount importance to the Gnostics. Where Gnosticism differs from Christianity is that Gnosticism says that "blind faith" does not grant salvation. To be saved from the forces of deception and ignorance (maya in Buddhist parlance) one must attain enlightenment: the direct experiential intimacy with G@d that is gnosis. This experience is the birthright of every aware human person.
6) Gnosticism is not elitist
Do Christians distinguish between the saved and the unsaved? Is this elitism? Gnostic teachings frequently reinforce the idea that liberation via gnosis is available to everyone; that such distinction is a matter of reclaiming birthright, of intent, choice, and effort. In fact, Gnostic theology tends to support the idea of apokatastasis, of universal salvation.
7) Gnosticism is not Utopian.
There is nothing in Gnostic scripture to support the idea that Gnostics wish to make "heaven on earth" from human efforts, and no connection whatsoever between Gnosticism and the reshaping of society; neither from fascism nor socialism. There is no "immanentizing the eschaton" in Gnosticism: Rather, this idea is the hallmark of millennialist Christianity.
8) Most basic tenets of Gnosticism are supported by Christian scripture
In fact there is a litany of Christian saints who are blatantly Gnostic; St. Francis of Assisi, St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, St. Hildegard of Bingen and St. Joan of Arc all described in detail the integrity of their experience of gnosis.
Paul says "The Kingdom of G@d is within you" which is probably the best single summation of Gnostic theology. Jesus says "My kingdom is not of this world" (Jn 18:36).
9) Gnosticism serves as a bridge between world religions
Gnosticism stands at the crossroads of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, representing a common ground. Historically Gnosticism influenced Judaism in the development of Kabala, and Islam in the development of Sufism; it both encouraged and challenged Christianity through its early centuries and contributed profoundly to Christian theology and identity.
10) Gnostic churches are thriving
Gnostics across North America and Europe gather weekly for prayer and Eucharist in forms very similar to orthodox liturgy. We derive inspiration from the Old and New Testaments, and also from Nag Hammadi scripture such as The Gospel of Thomas and The Thunder: Perfect Mind. A vital and growing Gnostic ekklesia is serving in charities, missions and hospitals; writing, crafting, debating and working in coffeehouses and dozens of parishes around the world. Most Gnostics consider themselves Christian, their churches constituting the Body of Christ. Other Gnostics gravitate to the symbolism and traditions of the Divine Feminine in her aspect as Sophia ("wisdom"), the Shekhina ("presence"), and the Holy Spirit.
Despite book-burnings, despite the Albigensian Crusade and the Inquisition, despite schlock-populism, and despite inane castigations from self-appointed pundits, we are still here; still praying, celebrating, exploring, and asking. Still Knowing.
17 comments:
Please add a link to this article to our website, Msgr Webmaster!
Ive thought the same many times over the past several weeks as Ive watched the so-called pundits speak about Gnosticism - only Dr Meyer (one of the translators of the Gospel of Judas) on the National Geographic TV special had a decently correct definition of Gnosticism - thank you for actually writing this down as a refutation of these orthodox pundits who dont *know*.
Pax
Msgr Ken+
Excellently put. Thanx.
Great post, Jordan+. Once again you've written something that has inspired me.
I appreciate your continued wisdom and insight.
Interesting article, good and concise, nice perspective piece. But I do have issues with it. I'll warn the arguments are very brief-reduced for time and space in a comment section
Every bible "expert":Ok, I'll ignore the lighthearted phrase, but really, there are some well researched scholars out there you could have quoted, and I don't think your depiction syncs up.
1)"Pre-Christian": One thing often missed is that Christianity rose out of Judaism, just like Gnostics who consider themselves grew out of previous beliefs. That poots the roots of Christianity several millenia before Gnosticism.
"Most of the people who still favoured these ideas considered themselves devout Christians":I'll put it briefly and discuss it later-I can consider myself a doctor, but unless the diploma's on the wall, I am not.
"Let us not forget that the most common topic ... Jesus refers to Peter as "Satan": Ok, I'll try to put this gently. Please read the NT in detail again and tell me this paragraph is actually true, and not sarcasm. You can't do it. Basic arithmatic's on my side. And the references of Paul and Jesus are read way out of context and selective (in the briefest way I can put it).
2)I agree completely.
3)"None of the four canonical Gospels were written in the first century. Mark was not written by Mark...": Wow, I'm gonna be blunt here. This is terribly researched or selective. All four gospels are accepted by almost all historians as first century documents by the authors listed. Before the Bible's Gosples, we have Paul's writings, accepted as written by Paul in the middle of the first century. We have dozens dated quotes and references to Paul and the Gospels by the start of the second century. Also, don't forget that Paul agrees doctrinally with the Gospels, and I can show that if desired.
"edited centuries later into the form we have today": I"m sorry, but the quotes and copies of Paul's writings we have today from the first two centuries indicate otherwise.
"varied greatly from region to region": By the time the Gnostic Gospels came on the scene, Paul's writings and the four Gospels were accepted identically throughout all of Christiandom. Some books, like Revelations, were only accepted by most, but were later accepted as a whole by all Christiandom.
5)"Gnosticism says that "blind faith" does not grant salvation": I don't believe in "blind" faith either, but regardless-the Holy Spirit and grace are intertwined with faith, and directly related to salvation according to the Bible. The Christian doctrine pre-existed what I'll call Christian Gnosticism (yes, all evidence indicates it), and therefore the concept of grace evolved. Problem is, at which point are they the same only in name? Also, the refusal to list God by name (@?) indicates a neglect of accepting grace.
6)Elitism? Hardly. It beckons most to the poor and distraught. Christianity (the beliefs, not necessarily every single individual) is opposite of elitist. It has an open invite to all. Yes, it does have a clear definition of true Christianity, but that's for understanding, not classification. It also shows how easy it is to be saved by Christ.
7)I don't at which point the Bible says man is responsible for "heaven on earth". My Bible indicates God is responsible
8)I would say not all who claim to be Christians are. Remember the doctor point? It's not that Christianity doesn't want them to be Christian, but when you reject basic fundamentals, you can't be classified as something. If I don't believe Mohammad was a prophet, I can't be called a Muslim, despite what I claim. I can call myself Muslim all day, but bottom line, I'm something different and maybe new. Also, the two verses listed agree equally with Christian doctrine, and are therefore neutralized. They don't indicate either way.
9)A bridge, yes. But only one religion (or none) can be true. They all disagree at some point on basic doctrine, and that's impossible to overcome. All teach an exact way into heaven, and all differ. Logically, at best one can be right. Maybe you're right, maybe not.
10)Agreed
Ok, that ran pretty long, but trust me, I skipped over lots and lots of evidence. Just found your article interesting and thought I'd express my view. Hope someone is willing to consider my writing with preconceptions and ponder the debate. Thanks.
"Every bible "expert":Ok, I'll ignore the lighthearted phrase, but really, there are some well researched scholars out there you could have quoted, and I don't think your depiction syncs up."
Seriously, this depiction was paraphrased by literally dozens of quotes over the last few weeks. There's not a single element added.
"One thing often missed is that Christianity rose out of Judaism, just like Gnostics who consider themselves grew out of previous beliefs. That poots [sic] the roots of Christianity several millenia before Gnosticism."
Clearly not, as the roots of Gnosticism are both Jewish and Kemetic (which even predates Judaism). So, if Christianity and Gnosticism share Jewish roots, how does Christianity get to be older than Gnosticism? The reality is that before there were Christians believing what Christians believe, there were Gnostics knowing what Gnostics know.
"Most of the people who still favoured these ideas considered themselves devout Christians":I'll put it briefly and discuss it later-I can consider myself a doctor, but unless the diploma's on the wall, I am not."
You're assuming a pre-Nicene orthodoxy for which there is no – seriously no – citation evidence whatsoever.
"Let us not forget that the most common topic ... Jesus refers to Peter as "Satan": Ok, I'll try to put this gently. Please read the NT in detail again and tell me this paragraph is actually true, and not sarcasm. You can't do it. "
Yes, I can. A phrase count and textual analysis of the NT does in fact show that the most common category is denunciation of other Christians.
"3)"None of the four canonical Gospels were written in the first century. Mark was not written by Mark...": Wow, I'm gonna be blunt here. This is terribly researched or selective. All four gospels are accepted by almost all historians as first century documents by the authors listed..."
To be similarly blunt, back in the '70s Brown buried the idea that there was a "John" behind John, which by the way is the earliest existing Gospel, dated at 130 or a titch later. I'm not saying that there weren't many consistencies in oral transmission, and I'm not entirely ruling out the possibility of a Q, but we have ZERO citations of anybody saying "I read the Gospel of Mark today" or "as the Gospel of Luke says..." until around 130. And that Mark by the way predates the "long ending" – the earliest Marks we have make no mention whatsoever of the Passion and Resurrection. These are later edits. So unless Mark was alive 100 years after the crucifixion to write his Gospel, and still alive 50 years after that to add a few chapters at the end, the canonical Gospels and the Gnostic Gospels are contemporary as mid/late-second century, a generation or so before Iranaeus.
"Before the Bible's Gosples [sic], we have Paul's writings, accepted as written by Paul in the middle of the first century. We have dozens dated quotes and references to Paul and the Gospels by the start of the second century. Also, don't forget that Paul agrees doctrinally with the Gospels..."
All you've stated here is that Paul is first century (which I pointed out to begin with), that we have no first century Gospel citations, and that the second-century Gospel authors read Paul.
"edited centuries later into the form we have today": I"m sorry, but the quotes and copies of Paul's writings we have today from the first two centuries indicate otherwise.
Show me a first century Timothy. I'll show you post-Pauline marginalia attributed directly to Paul centuries later. This one is too easy. The early Paul stuff we have proves my point, not yours.
"varied greatly from region to region": By the time the Gnostic Gospels came on the scene, Paul's writings and the four Gospels were accepted identically throughout all of Christiandom.
This is fantasy. There's not a shred of historical evidence to support this "identical acceptance", and buckets to state the contrary. Why did Iranaeus put it together if it was already there? Why call Nicea to dictate orthodoxy when it was already universal?
"Some books, like Revelations, were only accepted by most, but were later accepted as a whole by all Christiandom."
Later being the operative word.
"Also, the refusal to list God by name (@?) indicates a neglect of accepting grace."
With all due respect, the obfuscation of the word "G@d" doesn't neglect grace, it respects the power of the Name. It is a convention used in Judaism, and I employ it here out of respect for my Jewish readers.
"6)Elitism? Hardly. It beckons most to the poor and distraught. Christianity (the beliefs, not necessarily every single individual) is opposite of elitist. "
I never said Christianity was elitist, I said it made a distinction between the saved and the unsaved, as does Gnosticism. Gn therefore is not elitist for the same reason.
"7)I don't "
Well good, millennialism is just not healthy. It imposes militarism, feeds materialism, shows contempt for our fellow humans and trashes the planet.
8)I would say not all who claim to be Christians are.
I would say that unless you are a Roman Catholic, I can find a few hundred million people that would say you are not a Christian. If you are Catholic, I could find a few hundred thousand glossalalian megachurch snake-handlers that would say you're not a Christian.
"Also, the two verses listed agree equally with Christian doctrine, and are therefore neutralized. They don't indicate either way."
My point was that there are some Christian texts that reinforce some Gnostic teachings, and that the two religions are not necessarily mutually exclusive – and yes, that's exactly what these passages indicate.
"9)A bridge, yes. But only one religion (or none) can be true. They all disagree at some point on basic doctrine, and that's impossible to overcome. All teach an exact way into heaven, and all differ. Logically, at best one can be right. Maybe you're right, maybe not."
If only one religion is right, then it's Judaism; Jews are invariably smarter than Christians and the food is better. What's more logical is that each of these religions has something to offer, that each of these are maybe 90% right, and none of them are 100% right. Aristotle might help you with this one.
"10)Agreed. Ok, that ran pretty long, but trust me, I skipped over lots and lots of evidence. Just found your article interesting and thought I'd express my view. Hope someone is willing to consider my writing with preconceptions and ponder the debate. Thanks"
Civil discourse and challenge are always welcome here, cwazi. Thank you for your contribution!
BS"D
I'm still laughing at the idea that first-century c.e. Christians were rejecting Gnostics as heretics when at that point in history Christians were nothing but a heretical Jewish sect!
LOL
I think it is wonderful to finally know there is a name for something I've known all my life.
"I think it is wonderful to finally know there is a name for something I've known all my life."
amen.
I think it's incredible that I started my journey with the book "the Gnostic Gospels" by Elaine Pagels, got about halfway through it, and then started on a journey of seeking the origins of Christianity. What I finally concluded was exactly where I'd first started out, back at Gnosticism, although I've still never finished Elaine's book. There is overwhelming evidence that the Christian myths are not at all unique, and are really written as solar myths with esoteric meanings about the Christ, or Divine logos that dwells inside us all. Esoteric Christianity IS Christianity, which IS Gnosticism. Hallelujah, I'm not alone.
Jordan,
I appreciate your longing for righteousness, and your hunger for the Lord. I cruised your blog, and wanted to discuss a quote from Veith’s blog in light of a quote from yours (but not in that order).
You write: “Gnostics do not repudiate salvation through Grace : The role of Grace, and of the Holy Spirit, is of paramount importance to the Gnostics. Where Gnosticism differs from Christianity is that Gnosticism says that ‘blind faith’ does not grant salvation. To be saved from the forces of deception and ignorance (maya in Buddhist parlance) one must attain enlightenment: the direct experiential intimacy with G@d that is gnosis. This experience is the birthright of every aware human person.” – Your blog (from 10 Things Religious Pundits Need To Know About Gnosticism, Blog: Ecclesia Gnostica in Nova Albion)
Is this statement not in fact a Gnostic “repudiat[ion of] salvation through Grace?”
Is Grace a gift? Yes, absolutely. Can you attain a gift? No, at that point it becomes recompense for service. Is awareness a precondition to this attainment? Yes, according the Gnostic view you describe. Is this Good News, that we now must in some way attain our salvation? Never.
This is why the Gnosis cannot be the Gospel (as I understand it. It is the insight of Luther; more importantly the revelation to Paul- Luther simply “got Paul” via Grace). Jesus died on the cross for humanity. He paid the price for my inability to attain enlightenment. He is able where we are not, and through his blood we enter into relationship with God. His role does not change, I continue to rely entirely upon him, and for any change in my life or actions. As I understand it: the Gnosis is attainment where the Gospel is acceptance (which I believe comes from Grace as well). More simply put: not I, but Christ alone.
Vieth writes: “The author of ‘Pilgrim's Progress’ became a Christian when we attended a meeting at which Luther's ‘Commentary on Galatians.’ He said that he prized this book above all others next to the Bible for the consolation it gives to wounded consciences. And a major theme of ‘Pilgrim's Progress’ is the distinction between the Law and the Gospel. The most dramatic--and funny--example is what happened with the character Faithful. He tries to get to the Celestial City by climbing Mt. Sinai. He is carrying this heavy burden, which makes it even harder for him to climb those steep slopes. Then it turns out that Mt. Sinai is an active volcano, which erupts as he tries to climb it, sending fire and smoke and rocks down on him . And then, Moses shows up, who starts BEATING HIM UP!
Finally, Faithful slips down, realizing that he can't save himself by the good works of the Law. He just cannot fulfill the Law's demands. Then he finds a narrow gate and Christ on the Cross, whereupon his burden falls off and rolls into an empty tomb.” –Veith’s blog
Jordan, I must ask, when we (Lutheran Christians and Gnostic Christians) say “Grace,” are we possibly discussing two entirely different concepts? Can the Gnostic view of Grace be described as: help from outside plus action from within? Would you maintain then that salvation (or “enlightenment”) is not received, but rather obtained? If that is the case; are you not being saved, but instead enjoying merit through your own actions?
Peace,
Art
I'm not familiar with the Lutheran take on Grace, but Charis is held to be the ultimate evolutionary goal of every Gnostic, and equates most closely with the Catholic theology of "Supernatural adoption". From your brief note here, I detect a hint of of the Calvinist doctrine of "unconditional election" which I would hesitate to confuse with Grace. We do likewise not equate gnosis with salvation, but say that one is necessary for the other:
"What makes us free is the gnosis
of who we were,
of what we have become;
of where we were,
of wherein we have been cast;
of whereto we speed,
of wherefrom we are redeemed;
of what birth truly is,
and of what rebirth truly is."
Gnosis is a relationship (between the knower and the known); the awareness of Grace in the face of dokos.
I have to ask if some of those who post comments have actually researched history. It seems they repeat what they are taught by their own religious teachers.
Renowned Scholars believe Gnosticism to be as old as humanity itself.
In 2nd Century A.D., Gnosticism grew in Alexandria and the Mediterranean area and Jewish and Christian forms of Gnosticism had strong influence on the doctrine and the current structure of the Christian Church.
When Roman Catholicism became the state church in Armenia, Gnostics were sentenced to death for going against the “standard” Christian belief and fled to the mountains out of fear. After the 3rd Century, Gnosticism practically disappeared and an attempt to revive it in the Middle Ages became difficult because any document had been buried in the desert to avoid destruction.
The recent interest in Gnosticism is attributed to the discovery of the Nag Hammadi codices in 1945 which includes many books some of which are The Gospel of Thomas and Judas, The Gnostic Gospel of Jesus Christ and The Book of Mary Magdala herself.
Our established 2nd Century Catholic Church and Christian Church off-shoots still consider Gnosticism heresy as is seen here by some of the comments.
It's interesting to note that by A. D. 200, the Christianity had become a political institution of sorts and was headed by a three-rank hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons, who understood themselves to be the guardians of the only "true faith."
The majority of churches, among which the church of Rome took a leading role, rejected all other viewpoints. Deploring the diversity of the earlier movement, Bishop Irenaeus and his followers insisted that there could be only one church, and outside of that church, he declared, "there is no salvation." Members of this church alone are orthodox (literally, "straight-thinking") Christians. And, he claimed, this church must be catholic-- that is, universal.
Whoever challenged that consensus, arguing instead for other forms of Christian teaching, was declared to be a heretic, and expelled. When the orthodox gained military support, sometime after the Emperor Constantine became Christian in the fourth century, the penalty for heresy escalated and gnostic Christians were thrown into the Lion's Den.
It’s important to know your history… it does shed light on the roots of Christianity today. And as a side note, just about every religion that claims Christianity whether denominational or non is an off-shoot of Roman Catholicism. Seems that someone at some point thought they new the true faith.
Evangeline - I would suggest your summary is an unelpful oversimplification with numerous inaccuracies. To state that Gn is a 2nd Century AD phenomenon is off by 400 years (where did the Corpus Hermeticum come from?). To state that Christianity was monolith orthodoxy by 200 is utterly indefensible. Just because Iranaeus WROTE his stuff around 200 does not mean everybody READ it, or agreed with it instantly. We have huge differences in basic understandings of Christianity well into the sixth century, indeed through the middle ages and into the Reformation.
"Renowned Scholars believe Gnosticism to be as old as humanity itself. "
Name one. Please. Find me one renowned scholar who would say this. GNOSIS, yes. GnosticISM? No, no scholar would suggest this, renowned or otherwise.
You might perhaps benefit from a simple introduction to Christian history, such as Kung's, which is very approachable.
havent studied anything, exept life me you and ourself
feels as migraine to stuff brains with empty words and hollow info that in the end of the line.. does not make you Handle more Human
knowing without beeing what you know
heaven is within,
inner scholarship
life is our biggest Teacher
a simple girl
Bless You All
It appears that I've followed gnosticism throughout the latter half of my life without knowing that I was.
Now that I have an appropriate label (much better than the "athiest" that I've described myself as as a teenager...ugh!), I can move more forward with my revelations. This is such a great thing.
To be a bit candid, I believe that God has laid out a plan of sorts to bring people to this plane of understanding. Even when I was younger, I felt that the canonical bible was not accurate and full of blasphemy... This, I have learned, is more true than not.
What a pity.
Our world would be in much better shape universally had these wonderful teachings been available to the masses...but then again, America wouldn't have invaded Iraq had we known then what we know now.
Truly, all things happen for a reason...
In the end, my question at this time is whether or not there is a listing of churches/groups/meetings to attend and gather more comprehensive knowledge regarding Gnosticism...?
In the end, my question at this time is whether or not there is a listing of churches/groups/meetings to attend and gather more comprehensive knowledge regarding Gnosticism...?
The column directly to the right has a listing of Gn churches and suggested readings. Good luck!
Jordan and friends!
A note about my background before I comment on what's been posted here.
I have been part of the "established" firm of "Orthodox Christ and Co" since earliest years, as congregation, pastoral musician and teacher, etc - as Anglo-Catholic choirboy and server, Baptist organist, Swedish Lutheran Musikdirektör, Church of Ireland congregation, charismatic bible-"true" church worshipper (Nova Scotia,) etc., and also new-age "healer", acupressurist (Trad Chinese Medicine) and other roles in shamanic and alchemical transformation.
All this has led me to read many sacred and transformational texts as well as the Bible, the Gnostic and other so-called "apochryphal" texts, as well as Sufi and Buddhist wisdom, etc.
I return again and again to the Bible and read with both Joy, the Hope and Empowerment which are therein, and also with gut-wrenching anguish, the "My God is better than your God" and, ideally, we'll torture, kill, maim or banish you to Hell forever in His (yes, the war-god's a "He") name if-you-don't-believe-and-do-like-us, that exists side by side with the Comfort and Love.
I believe that Jesus' stated wish that we do what he did and greater things brings Grace and Enlightenment together in a way that fully resonates with his intention. I also believe that this intention is ongoingly deeply transformative and requires an intimate relationship with the Divine - an experience of God that makes all else pale by comparison.
(Interestingly, the charismatics I sometimes worship with have "soaking evenings" in order to feel and know Christ at-one-within-them. If this isn't a form of Gnosis, then what is? They may be utterly confused about "I Am the Way" and the so-called "innerancy" of the Bible, their knowledge of church history blinkered by what they've already decided is "truth", but then, don't MOST of us do this in our own - often subconscious - way, ie interpret the "truth" of what we know and read by what we feel we have "seen"?)
For me, the decision to embrace the term Gnostic, is intertwined with the idea of the Holy Script as a TRANSFIGURATIVE (that is, changing me and itself) document helping us to know God ever more intimately within ourselves and be more and more transformed by God's Unconditional Love. History is useful, but changes with the perceiver, just as interpretation of the sacred texts does; when we have the divine insight to say (as Jesus did) "Here is something New" - something that challenges the old, hateful, war-inspiring, unvalidatingly separating in favour of the unconditionally inclusive in Love, do we not then KNOW Grace at that deeper level? And is not Enlightenment and Being "Saved from that lesser form of ourselves" in deeper reality one and the same?
The temptation is to forget this and keep dividing off some children of God as unworthy or as deserving less-than-Heaven.
God forbid.
John Overton
http://christaltemple.blogspot.com
Post a Comment