theos-talk.com

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World Jerry- Agnostics defined

Mar 27, 2006 04:57 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins


So you're saying that gnosticism originated from Simon Magus in the Bible?
No. I am saying that an ante Nicene Father named Irenaeus asserted that gnosticism originated from Simon Magus.
Gnosticism is evil in your perspective?
No. I believe that Gnosticism is a term Irenaeus coined to describe the various sects of Christianity he was aware of and condemned as evil because they were competing with his own sect of Christianity for members.

Or are you rather referring to mysticism as opposed to gnosticism?

Neither is evil, in my opinion.

In what specific way(s) do you believe that the Christ is knowable?
I was describing the beliefs of Valentenian and Sethian Gnosticism, not necessarily my own beliefs.

And who specifically are you referring to when you mention the trinity?

I was again describing the above mentioned Gnostic belief: That God is three in one: Monad, Logos, Barbelo.

Who or what is the trinity in your perspective?

In my perspective, it is a concept borrowed from neo-Platonism. Specifically from Plotinus and from the Hermetic writings of "The Good Shepard."

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

I don't believe in physical immortality.

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

Gnosticism is a blanket term originally coined by Irenaeus. Today the term is used in different ways. Church Theologians generally use it as a blanket term for any early Christian sect that the Church wiped out in the fifth century, and for the Cathars in France, which the Church exterminated by genocide in the twelfth or thirteenth century. Secular biblical scholars refer to specific early sects of Christianity as Gnostic and other sects as not gnostic, depending upon their teachings involved gaining enlightenment through the gnosis of Christ. I suppose Gnosticism could be described as a form of mysticism, but a mystic is not necessarily a gnostic. I would not call St. Theresa of Avila a Gnostic, for instance.

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

Or depending on the perspective of the one who is making the classification.
Best
Jerry













Vincent wrote:

Jerry-

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
















Yahoo! Groups Links











[Back to Top]


Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application