Were gnostics right or not ?

lol no

Some of their theories are interesting to look at from a catholic perspective (old and new testament gods are different beings) but a lot of it is horseshit

Most of it seems to be a case of inventing history and applying later philosophy to Christ.
Do we have any historical data that supports the gnostic version of events?

File: st.png (991KB, 1078x811px) Image search: [Google]

991KB, 1078x811px

>>508689
Well, based on anthropological findings that, at least in my opinion, cast doubt on the reality of the foundations of Judaism, I would say by relation, it probably isn't correct in the sense that it is some form of objective truth.

Also, after readings of Hermetic texts, such as the Kybalion and other literature reputed to be written by Hermes Trismegistus, I think that while interesting thoughts, it is ultimately obtrusive mysticism.

I very much doubt that there is any basis in reality in the Hidden Masters, and that stories of Simon Magus, Kabbalah, Christian Rosencruetz and etc. are merely myth or distortions.

"As above, so below" doesn't mean anything tbqh familia

>>508689
When you learn about demiurge/evil creator god (s) it makes sense as to why we are in an imperfect material reality.

>people blame God and religion
>tfw they don't realize karma is based on cause and effect of human decision

Jesus comes and promises us God in Spirit, promising to send the Holy Spirit, so we can love God as the Holy Spirit.

Gnostics believe that matter / spirit are obviously different, so the material god isn't the same as the Spirit of God.

Then you have so many different kinds of Gnostics, and they should believe in Jesus.

Some believe in certain books and others reject some, some believe in Lucifer and some have sex cults. This is where it actually turns into a heresy.

You have to practically apply what you start to get yourself into, but be careful because there are some other Gnostic sects that could fall into the black magic category.

>>508744
Thoughts on Hegel?

None of them even knew Christ, so no.

>>508712

That's marcionism, not gnosticism per se.

Can someone point me at the places in the gospels where Jesus said something contradicting the core ideas of gnosticism ?

>>512349
Everything to do with following the old Law and establishing Christ as the continuation of it. Matthew deals a lot with this.

If we believe the Gnostics then Christ is pretending to be demiurge himself, seems kinda suspicious.

>>512365
Christ isn't pretending to be demiurge

>>510312

As opposed to say, the Gospel writers or Paul, amirite?

>>512349

God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son to save it?

>>512349
Jesus doesn't really say anything that contradicts creator god/ Spiritual God.

At least in the sense that their Creator is the Creator of the Spirit.

I guess it depends because "gnostics" is a wide umbrella term, but Christians who don't ever read anything from Nag Hammadi are missing out definitely

Because how many denominations of mainstream Christianity are there? You might as well develope a personal relationship to God rather than consult "pastors" who are sometimes Freemasons

>church has been infiltrated
>the Romans who killed Jesus don't have the right to take over his teachings

>>512349
Jesus being a Torah teacher and the New Testament being a witness to the Oral Torah even before the Mishnah is even compiled:

http://www.yashanet.com/library/articles/yeshua.htm

>>512373
Paul was a Gnostic, and Paul having a revelation from Jesus is the core part of Christianity where people believe in Jesus for the same style of revelation.

I still believe Jesus lived and God sent Him, just hard to decipher a Bible that has been "hijacked" if you believe the Bible isn't an uncorrupted document.

>>512377
He must have had the same beliefs as the Jews then that's why they killed Him

>>512379
>Paul was a Gnostic
Prove it

>>512383

>Implying "The Jews" had a unified set of beliefs.

>>508744
>"As above, so below" doesn't mean anything tbqh familia
>What are fractals
Literally can be applied to a lot of things

>>512379
>Paul was a Gnostic
Holy shit fuck no

>>512384
Can't prove it, but Paul's letters can / make more sense (to me) when you interpret them from a "Gnostic" standpoint.

Considering the term "gnostic" means way too many different things to be put into one belief system

>>512394
Exactly, and the Pharisees Talmud Jews tried to kill Jesus.

This implies Jesus had a different method of teachings, so much different that they killed Him. And if you look how simple Jesus and His teachings are, it's just so obvious why.

>>512396
I am almost certain Paul was a Gnostic

>>512398
Gnostic literally means people who pretend to be christian but aren't really christians. Like counter-revolutionary in early Communist China

>>512405
What core tenets of Gnosticism did Paul subscribe to? Gnosticism was a clear rejection of the church the christian created and Paul defined what most of the church would be

>>512405

>Exactly, and the Pharisees Talmud Jews tried to kill Jesus.

Unless, of course, you sit back and compare the beliefs of the "Pharisees" of the Gospels with other accounts of Pharisee and later RabbinicJ udaic beliefs and note that the "Pharisees" of the Gospels have a lot more in common with the Sadducees.


Which would make sense, since it's the Sadducee high priest, not Pharisees like Gamaliel who are trying to get Pilate to nail Jesus to a tree.

Which actually doesn't imply anything about difference of teachings. Jesus parrots quite a few Pharisee lines, like the Golden Rule among others.

>>512421
>gnostic literally means people who pretend to be Christian
Actually the literal definition means "knowledge" ?

The only real difference is the demiurge / all powerful God, essentially the creation story, and more in depth teachings.

Paul is misunderstood, you just have to remember the "church" back then was just getting started, and Paul also got killed/matured I'm pretty sure.

The church doesn't kick off until Constantine and this is where the Romans Catholic Church still stands today.

>>512440
Matthew 23 talks about the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees

I wouldn't go so far as to say Jesus was completely Jewish in faith it just doesn't add up.

>>512398
>Paul's letters can / make more sense (to me) when you interpret them from a "Gnostic" standpoint.
So why does he gives a shit about himself following the Law? Why does he speak of salvation being brought to the Jews first, if he's a Gnostic? (Rom 1:16)

>Can't prove it
But of course!

Paul of Tarsus not an Internet Gnostic, he's what today is called a Messianic Jew.

>>512462

I'd recommend Revolution in Judea by Maccoby.

Essentially, he goes to great depths to demonstrate a variaty of biases or perhaps even flat out later edits to the Gospels, which present a distorted picture of what the "Historic Jesus" was actually like.

Then he tries to reverse the biases and reconstruct "Historic Jesus" which I thought was a bit dumb, but his analysis of the composition and the political climate of the Gospel authorship, as well as where things in the Gospels lie along the various positions of other Jewish sects is pretty spot on.

>>512446
>Actually the literal definition means "knowledge" ?
That is the correct definition of the word, but the group known as gnostics were labelled so by christian using the definition i said earlier. Gnostics never referred to themselves as gnostics.

>The only real difference is the demiurge / all powerful God, essentially the creation story, and more in depth teachings.
What about the Aeon Sophia and Christ and their relationship with each other?

You still haven't told me how Paul is a gnostic

>>512486
That's why I use it aseems an umbrella term. If the creator god is different than the Holy Spirit of the actual God, this makes sense to see how the construct of matter / spirit and explains suffering in this material life.

You have to take the teachings for yourself though, I can't just spoon feed them for you. And again I can't prove Paul was a gnostic, but you can't prove he isn't a gnostic because he died 1900 years ago good luck

File: Plotinos.jpg (69KB, 569x681px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 569x681px

Of course not. Read Plotinus.

>>508837
Most likely the creation story being different, which explains the suffering of the material world.

>>512379
Paul could have been gnostic as may early Christians are likely to adopt certain beliefs at the time

>>512553
Meh. I'd rather just read the gnostic Gospels.

>>512580
Why not read Timaeus and see the work the Gnostic misinterpreted?

>>512589
Everything is misinterpreted.

I mean to point out the gnostic creation story over the common Genesis story for this actually clears up most of the perception of why people hate Christianity and what they can do to love it.

Not all Gnostics have the same beliefs, and some go as far out of the way and deny Christ which isn't what I am going for.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (263KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1920x1080px

>>512553
OP here
I already read him, a very smart man, i feel quite neoplatonician

>>512589
How is it misinterpreted?

>>512533
>I can't prove my wild assertion to be true, but you can't prove it to be false
Goddamnit. Every. fucking. time

>>512652
Read 'Against Those That Affirm the Creator of the Cosmos and the Cosmos Itself to Be Evil' - Plotinus

http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Plotinus5.html

File: meme2664115154.jpg (62KB, 341x512px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 341x512px

>>512652
It just seems very likely

>>512396
I just mean to say that quote in respect to the idea that all existence is a mental thoughtform of the supreme (not demiurge) god

>>508689
no. They're right about a lot of things, but they hold that Jesus wasn't the Son of God. You'd think they'd put 2 and 2 together at some point

>>508732
Gnosticism was around before Jesus

>>512373
>As opposed to say, the Gospel writers or Paul, amirite?
Paul was buddies with the Apostles, which is where he got his doctrines

"Gnosticism" is a modern invention. They were just a bunch of different sects that laid claim to the Christian tradition. None of them identified themselves as "gnostics" in any sectarian sense and contradicted one another as often as they contradicted the proto-orthodoxy, so you have to be specific about which "gnostics" you're talking about.

People need to stop using "gnosticism" seriously.

>>512440
>tree
Totally a side note, but why do the letters of Peter state christ was hung from a tree instead of crucified? I feel like translators would change that to crucified to prevent confusion, yet they did not.

>>514384

>Totally a side note, but why do the letters of Peter state christ was hung from a tree instead of crucified?

I honestly didn't even realize that. I've never read the letters of Peter. No idea.

>>512384
>What is the road to Damascus
Gnostic = knowledge of/belief in God through direct divine experience (gnosis), rather than through acceptance of Dogma. In this true sense of the word, he was very much a Gnostic.

>>512533
>you can't prove he isn't a gnostic

Basic knowledge about the history of gnosticism (actual gnosticism, not the bullshit you can find all over the internet) proves that. It was a movement founded in the second century that may have been quite diverse, but did adhere to a set of general principles, and Paul fit none of them. Basically, he helped found what would become the church that gnosticism consistently pitted itself against and tried to prove was wrong. Trying to claim he was a gnostic is nonsensical.

>>515443
>It was a movement founded in the second century that may have been quite diverse, but did adhere to a set of general principles, and Paul fit none of them.

Every attempt to define gnosticism according to a set of general principles has failed to take into account its diversity. Paul was both a gnostic and not a gnostic, simply because "gnosticism" never existed and is a subjective term invented by modern historians.

Clement of Alexandria considered the orthodox to be the "true gnostics"

The term "gnostic" was simply an adjective that could be used as much by the orthodox as the heterodox and the term "gnostic" seldom comes up in any of the gnostic writings. Even in the heresiological writings of Tertullian and Irenaeus, the term "gnostic" is only ever used in the sense "someone who claims they know" not as a distinct religious phenomenon.

Both the Marcionites and the Orthodox mystical tradition completely debunk any notion of a united "gnostic" movement that excluded the orthodox themselves.

>>515462
What this nigga said. Gnostics probably considered themselves true christians if anything else

>>508689
>Were gnostics right or not ?

They are right, Anon.
They are.

>>515513
Gnostics didn't even consider Jesus to be the Christ, so the label "Christians" would really apply

>>516679
If that were so, Christ's Apostles would have been Gnostics.

File: Mar Mani.jpg (70KB, 501x653px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 501x653px

>>508689
They were close, but still missed the true message of light.

>>513841
This is true.

It is like when you say nirvana you really mean so much more than what the word means within context.

Saying "gnostic" means way more than a specific definition

>>512472
Because all people deserve salvation of they do it right.

>For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth: to the Jews first, and also to the Greek.

I think you might take it out of context.

This also says that Jews and the Greeks can find the salvation of the Gospel, whoever believes in the Gospel is saved by the Gospel, the Jews and Greeks can convert to Paul's testimony