Question about gnosticism?

[Ian Roz]

What is the origin of gnosticism? where does the two God idea come from? is it from a personality or is it a creation from a school of thinking i.e Alexandria.
I have studied the Gospel of Judas and the Apocalypse of Adam which is believed to be pre-Christian Gnostic text.
It probably did not come from Jesus if there is a pre-Christian text ? Please can anybody help me :think:

 

[CherubRam]

What is the origin of gnosticism? where does the two God idea come from? is it from a personality or is it a creation from a school of thinking i.e Alexandria.
I have studied the Gospel of Judas and the Apocalypse of Adam which is believed to be pre-Christian Gnostic text.
It probably did not come from Jesus if there is a pre-Christian text ? Please can anybody help me :think:

I do not understand you comment about two Gods.
Here is some history about Gnosticism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gnosticism

 

[CherubRam]

Dualism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism

 

[CherubRam]

What is the origin of gnosticism? where does the two God idea come from? is it from a personality or is it a creation from a school of thinking i.e Alexandria.
I have studied the Gospel of Judas and the Apocalypse of Adam which is believed to be pre-Christian Gnostic text.
It probably did not come from Jesus if there is a pre-Christian text ? Please can anybody help me :think:

There are many so called gods, real and imagined. There is only one person though that is truly God, and that is Yahwah. Those who have, or will have life immortal are called (elohim / gods.) Only Yahwah can grant life immortal.

 

[chriscapparell]

Question about gnosticism?

It all came from Plato. Originally, the demiurge (the evil deity) was not evil. Plato is the original source.

 

[daqq]

What is the origin of gnosticism? where does the two God idea come from? is it from a personality or is it a creation from a school of thinking i.e Alexandria.
I have studied the Gospel of Judas and the Apocalypse of Adam which is believed to be pre-Christian Gnostic text.
It probably did not come from Jesus if there is a pre-Christian text ? Please can anybody help me :think:

The quintessential gnostic text would probably be the Apocryphon of John as that is where you will find much about the teachings of a "demiurge", (cannot remember the name of the demiurge exactly but I think it was "Yaltoboath" or something similar). Marcion believed similarly, that is, that "the God of the Old Testament" was indeed real but only the Creator of all that is physical and therefore, in his opinion, evil, and thus he had clipped all of the TaNaK quotes out of his Pauline Epistles and Gospel of Luke, (which were essentially his canon). You can find the Apocryphon of John online with a simple search, (Gnostic Library). It certainly did not come from Yeshua and is certainly not a "pre-Christian" text.

 

[Spitfire]

What is the origin of gnosticism? where does the two God idea come from? is it from a personality or is it a creation from a school of thinking i.e Alexandria.
I have studied the Gospel of Judas and the Apocalypse of Adam which is believed to be pre-Christian Gnostic text.
It probably did not come from Jesus if there is a pre-Christian text ? Please can anybody help me :think:

Zoroastrianism, probably.

 

[Zeke]

Historic Christianity has gathered its crops that were not of its kind, but were garnered from seed already in the soil.

The supposed historic portraiture in the Canonical Gospels was extant as Mythical and Mystical before the Gospels themselves existed.

The Gnostic teaching was most certainly the Christ of many who were called Christian prior to the third century, who also rejected the historic character.

 

[Foxfire]

Both of the major second century examples of what we loosly call Gnosticism, the Marcionites and the Valentenians traced their teachings directly to Paul.

The Marcion Bible, the first formal compilation of Christian text into a canon, was composed almost exclusively of the Pauline letters with the addition of parts of Luke. Rejecting the Hebrew texts (old testament) entirely.

Marcion and Valentinus both claimed to be in possession of secret inner knowledge of Paul's work, transmitted orally, directly from students of Paul himself.

 

[Spitfire]

Both of the major second century examples of what we loosly call Gnosticism, the Marcionites and the Valentenians traced their teachings directly to Paul.

The Marcion Bible, the first formal compilation of Christian text into a canon, was composed almost exclusively of the Pauline letters with the addition of parts of Luke. Rejecting the Hebrew texts (old testament) entirely.

Marcion and Valentinus both claimed to be in possession of secret inner knowledge of Paul's work, transmitted orally, directly from students of Paul himself.

For which some church fathers are wrongly faulted for having repudiated Paul when actually they were repudiating how Marcion and others were interpreting Paul and his epistles, but not Paul himself or his epistles themselves.

Peter warned us that would happen.

 

[Nick M]

I have studied the Gospel of Judas

I don't think Judas has good news.

 

[Wick Stick]

Gnosticism doesn't believe in 2 gods. It believes that there are a whole pantheon of not-quite-gods, which are emanations of a single (capital-G) God, arranged in a complex hierarchy. They are called aeons and archons and thrones and cherubs and seraphs and archangels and angels and so on and so forth.

The gnostic posits one God who is not of the physical world, and then says that God has some number of emanations or attributes (Grace, Charity, Love, Wisdom, Truth, etc) each of which may be perceived separately, and may act independently, and then mankind perceives these attributes of the Godhead as being (small-g) gods, though really they are part of the larger.

I guess you're talking about the idea of a Demiurge. In gnosticism, the Demiurge is one of these lesser attributes of the Godhead, usually representing the attribute of Order, which tried to put order to the creation, which was at first "formless and void."

Long story short, this emanation of the Godhead is somehow supposed to have lost touch with the rest of the aeons and forgotten they existed, and so it thought itself to be the only god, and represented itself to mankind that way.

Another emanation "Christos" is then thought to have reconciled the Demiurge (who is identified as the OT "Jehovah") into the rest of the Godhead. So in gnosticism, Christ does not reconcile God to man, but rather reconciles an errant self-styled "God" into the larger Godhead.

Jarrod

 

[daqq]

Gnosticism doesn't believe in 2 gods. It believes that there are a whole pantheon of not-quite-gods, which are emanations of a single (capital-G) God, arranged in a complex hierarchy. They are called aeons and archons and thrones and cherubs and seraphs and archangels and angels and so on and so forth.

The gnostic posits one God who is not of the physical world, and then says that God has some number of emanations or attributes (Grace, Charity, Love, Wisdom, Truth, etc) each of which may be perceived separately, and may act independently, and then mankind perceives these attributes of the Godhead as being (small-g) gods, though really they are part of the larger.

I guess you're talking about the idea of a Demiurge. In gnosticism, the Demiurge is one of these lesser attributes of the Godhead, usually representing the attribute of Order, which tried to put order to the creation, which was at first "formless and void."

Long story short, this emanation of the Godhead is somehow supposed to have lost touch with the rest of the aeons and forgotten they existed, and so it thought itself to be the only god, and represented itself to mankind that way.

Another emanation "Christos" is then thought to have reconciled the Demiurge (who is identified as the OT "Jehovah") into the rest of the Godhead. So in gnosticism, Christ does not reconcile God to man, but rather reconciles an errant self-styled "God" into the larger Godhead.

Jarrod

While these things may be true the end result is the same: the relegation of the "Old Testament God" to the dustbin of history, (grave error). The modern mainstream has essentially done the same only now the "Marcionite scissors" are imaginary theological scissors.

 

[Wick Stick]

The quintessential gnostic text would probably be the Apocryphon of John as that is where you will find much about the teachings of a "demiurge", (cannot remember the name of the demiurge exactly but I think it was "Yaltoboath" or something similar). Marcion believed similarly, that is, that "the God of the Old Testament" was indeed real but only the Creator of all that is physical and therefore, in his opinion, evil, and thus he had clipped all of the TaNaK quotes out of his Pauline Epistles and Gospel of Luke, (which were essentially his canon). You can find the Apocryphon of John online with a simple search, (Gnostic Library). It certainly did not come from Yeshua and is certainly not a "pre-Christian" text.

There are several different flavors of gnosticism and the names and titles are different in each one. The "early church father" Irenaeus seminal work Against Heresies is written largely in refutation of the various forms of gnosticism, and much of what we know about gnosticism comes from his book.

According to Irenaeus the minor Biblical character Simon Magus (aka Simon the Sorcerer) was the original founder of all gnosticism, and claimed that he was himself the incarnation of a certain emanation of God - exousia theou - "the power of God" in imitation of the gospel of John's proclamation that Jesus was the incarnation of another such emanation - logos theou - "the Word of God."

Simon turns out to be a major character (the villain) in some of the non-canonical New Testament books, such as the Acts of Peter and Paul. In one place, Peter is said to have to have been condemned to crucifixion because he caused Simon's death. Comically, this was accomplished when Peter prayed and God interfered with Simon's magical flying spell and he fell out of the sky.

I don't know if you care about any of this at all, but I'm responding to you because I'm interested in your take on the Biblical character Simon Magus (Acts 8:9). What or who does he represent, in your thinking? Cue the Jeopardy music.

Jarrod

 

[Wick Stick]

Zoroastrianism, probably.

You're close! It's a synthesis of Manichaeism with Judaism and the Mystery Religions (aka Philosophy). Manichaeism inherits from Zoroastrianism, so that's probably why you're seeing similarities. :smile:

 

[daqq]

There are several different flavors of gnosticism and the names and titles are different in each one. The "early church father" Irenaeus seminal work Against Heresies is written largely in refutation of the various forms of gnosticism, and much of what we know about gnosticism comes from his book.

According to Irenaeus the minor Biblical character Simon Magus (aka Simon the Sorcerer) was the original founder of all gnosticism, and claimed that he was himself the incarnation of a certain emanation of God - exousia theou - "the power of God" in imitation of the gospel of John's proclamation that Jesus was the incarnation of another such emanation - logos theou - "the Word of God."

Simon turns out to be a major character (the villain) in some of the non-canonical New Testament books, such as the Acts of Peter and Paul. In one place, Peter is said to have to have been condemned to crucifixion because he caused Simon's death. Comically, this was accomplished when Peter prayed and God interfered with Simon's magical flying spell and he fell out of the sky.

I don't know if you care about any of this at all, but I'm responding to you because I'm interested in your take on the Biblical character Simon Magus (Acts 8:9). What or who does he represent, in your thinking? Cue the Jeopardy music.

Jarrod

I do believe Simon Magus truly repented but that does not mean he was "instantaneously changed" as is taught so rampantly today. Does "falling from the sky" ring a bell from the same passage? (and Philip was later "found at Azotus"). Simon Magus, (magician) the megan, (a mighty one) is not an anthropos, (man-faced countenance) but rather stated to be an aner, (man). In the same passage there is an aner which had just been to Jerusalem, to worship, and the same was a man of great power, (actually a "dunastes" mighty one or potentate) under the Queen of the South, over all her gaza-treasure. :chuckle:

Oops, sorry Alex, is it too late to put that in the form of a question?

 

[Wick Stick]

You make interesting connections. I'm not too sure about this one...

One of the Caesars erected a monument to Simon Magus, proclaiming him a god on earth. The monument existed into recent memory. It would seem Simon was a literal man, beyond whatever meaning he holds for the reader. Going by Irenaeus and the non-canonical gospels and acts, Simon the Sorceror was a Samaritan (not Ethiopian), and a mentor to the notable heretic Cerinthus.

But then, Irenaeus' history is somewhat questionable. Despite being an orthodox church father, he disagrees with the official history (Eusebius) in large points. For instance, he has Jesus remaining on earth for over a decade after the resurrection, before finally ascending (which agrees with the gnostics he was refuting, ironically).

I've wondered sometimes how much truth there is to that. The gospels basically end after the resurrection, and everyone dispersed and evangelized the world. We only have Scripture tracking events from the southern Mediterranean after that point... Did the bishop of Lyon, France know something that is not recorded there?

Jarrod

 

[daqq]

You make interesting connections. I'm not too sure about this one...

One of the Caesars erected a monument to Simon Magus, proclaiming him a god on earth. The monument existed into recent memory. It would seem Simon was a literal man, beyond whatever meaning he holds for the reader. Going by Irenaeus and the non-canonical gospels and acts, Simon the Sorceror was a Samaritan (not Ethiopian), and a mentor to the notable heretic Cerinthus.

But then, Irenaeus' history is somewhat questionable. Despite being an orthodox church father, he disagrees with the official history (Eusebius) in large points. For instance, he has Jesus remaining on earth for over a decade after the resurrection, before finally ascending (which agrees with the gnostics he was refuting, ironically).

I've wondered sometimes how much truth there is to that. The gospels basically end after the resurrection, and everyone dispersed and evangelized the world. We only have Scripture tracking events from the southern Mediterranean after that point... Did the bishop of Lyon, France know something that is not recorded there?

Jarrod

Perhaps the difference between a city, (Samaria) and the desert concerns where one dwells mentally and spiritually speaking. If one has joined himself to the Queen of Seven, (as in the days of Noach) the same may reside anywhere on earth, physically speaking, yet such a one spiritually speaking may be roaming the dry-arid desert places of misunderstanding. How then shall such a one come to understanding unless Elohim sends a messenger to open his or her eyes? This almost always takes place in the desert of our wanderings. As for those ten years you mentioned, (not that I agree with either, but) I thought read in Slavonic Josephus that Yochanan also lived about the same amount of time after he was supposed to have been beheaded by Herod.

 

[Ian Roz]

Wow! thank you for your comments, I have alot of work to do here! please let me know if you have any more ideas?

 

[Ian Roz]

I do not understand you comment about two Gods.
Here is some history about Gnosticism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gnosticism

Please read the Gospel of Judas