Talk:Gnosticism/Archive 2

Gnostic Userbox
If anybody is interested in gnosticism, he can use this userbox on his page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.218.77 (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Image


I'm considering adding the Flammarion Woodcut in the manner depicted here on the right to the article, either as top image or as an image in the section(s) that deal with Platonism. It is used in this sense on the cover of Stephan A. Hoeller's book on Gnosticism. No matter what you think of Hoeller, I think it is a striking good illustration. Any comments?


 * Would the usage be desribed as 'fair use'? And perhaps the caption could read 'by circumventing the constraints of materiality' rather than 'accessible only to those who seek them'? Otherwise, no worries!  Visual Error 23:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well the usage is more than fair since the image is not copyrighted anymore, its possibly mideval, noone knows who made it, and it was printed first in 1888. I'll change the caption and put it in. Nixdorf 14:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved content
In response to the split tag, I've moved content on the Gnosticism page to a new page: Gnosticism in Modern Times. Visual Error 23:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've also moved content from the Nag Hammadi section to the relevent article, and summarised in the Gnosticism article. Visual Error 13:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I also moved all relevant links along to that subpage. However, according to Manual of Style (headings) you should not have links in headers, and the page should probably be renamed Gnosticism in modern times. Nixdorf 11:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem - I've removed the title links and moved the content to Gnosticism in modern times. Any chance you could delete the old page, please Nixdorf? Visual Error 01:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK deleted it. Nixdorf 10:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there any other content that people think might be moved to reduce article size? I think the only remaining candidate is Major Gnostic schools and their texts, but aside from that everything else seems fairly well-fitted. Any thoughts? Visual Error 23:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Quoting of sources
Going over the page I think it could actually use some quoting of source, both primary and secondary. A few well select quotes from the Nag Hammadi Library would really help in tying the explanations in with the context. (Use the new nice quotation template if you quote larger chunks, I edited the page using it and it looks great.) Nixdorf 22:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This page needs significant quoting of sources. Too many to mention really. For all the "facts" covered, only 8 footnotes (and some inline referencing). Also, when quoting a source, page numbers are helpful. Finally, I'd include Irenaeus' Against Heresies as a primary source - for 1500 years it was the major source for our knowledge of the gnostic beliefs. DaXiong 06:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Gnostic origin of the word "matrix"
It is my understanding that the word "matrix" comes from a Gnostic concept of an enmeshing mother principle. Is this the case? If so, I would like to add an entry for matrix and/or a section on this page. As it is, the concept of the Gnostic Matrix is not mentioned in Wikipedia... or really much on the internet. Every time I look for it, all I get is many, many references to the obvious religious overtones of the movie, The Matrix, with no real commentary on the original Gnostic concept where the word "matrix" seems to have entered the English language. Epastore 23:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Epastore! To be honest, I don't think the word 'matrix' derives from Gnosticism - I've definitely never heard it mentioned in connection with Gnosticism, save The Matrix film, of course. This isn't to say my knowledge is complete, but I just haven't heard it mentioned.  Though the word does derive from the Latin 'mater' ('mother', 'source', 'origin') with the particular sense of a mother organism used for breeding, and thus an interesting overlap with Gnostic creation myths can potentially be identified, I don't think this is an avenue that has been sufficiently explored enough (as you say yourself, finding online sources at least is difficult) to be included here, unless you have any sources to hand.  In any case, I think the meaning of matrix as being 'an enclosing or embedding mass' (and thus similar to the Gnostic enmeshing mother principle) is a fairly late development, in the seventeenth century.  That said, if you can find some sources, I think the ideal place for this information would be on the matrix page itself, rather than Gnosticism... Visual Error 09:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I never heard it in connection with Gnosticism either, and the source for the movie title is most certainly the cyberspace Matrix featured in Neuromancer by William Gibson. Nixdorf 21:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I heard of the connection long before there was a movie. Or an internet, for that matter. Sometime in the late eighties, a friend who was reading a book on the early Christians told me about the connection. I guess I'll just have to try and look for it next time I'm in a library. :) Epastore 01:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

To get better or more in depth knowledge that can be quoted you should ask James Burton Coffman as he is a very learned man who knows much about biblical studies and it is through him that i found out about Gnostics in the first place.


 * The matrix movie takes most of its themes from Hinduism. As both buddhism, Judaism, Zoroasterism and gnostic christianity share views with hinduism, its not suprising that both have been mentioned/connected to the matrix film. One could profer a theory that all major religions today are derivations of one root religion, as many stories in Abramic religions are also written in Zorostra'n and Hindi Vedic scripture. Take Vaisnavism for instance. They promote that there is a spiritual world (where God resides) and a material world withing which all fallen souls (jiva's) are bound to. The plot of the matrix film was inspired by multiple religious sources according to its makers. In a similar way, a house is made by many craftsmen.86.4.59.203 23:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Didymus.

History of Gnosticism
I created a History of Gnosticism article to help w size concerns. I think this article needs to focus on explaining gnosticism to a layman, rather than overviewing scholarly misunderstandings and debates. Lets focus on points of agreement, where possible.

Also there is a great deal of good information avaliable on the wikipedia itself, we should seek to make this article a hub, linking to the various articles @ Category:Gnosticism. Sam Spade 15:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Check this
Check this out: Psychics (gnosticism), do whatever is appropiate with it since I assume you guys would be the experts. Dan, the CowMan 20:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've redirected that page here. The subject is detailed in the Gnosticism page... Nixdorf 20:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Monad
In the introduction's note - "God (The Monad)" - Monad links to the regular Monad article. There is some information of relevance there, but should it point to the Monad (Gnosticism) article instead? I've just noticed that the general Monad article is linked to in the first point under "A typological model: the main features of gnosticism" with the word monadic. I think it's appropriate to link the first use of Monad to Monad (Gnosticism) and monadic to Monad. - Slow Graffiti 16:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The problem now is that when you get to "monadic" you get monad defined in terms of itself. At this point you need to go to something that defines "monadic" free of the Gnostic context. The wiktionary definition will do but from what I see all of the related pages in wikipedia would be misleading.Mangoe 16:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Look for a man called James Burton Coffman as he could be a lot of help.

Mediated or Mitigated
I just changed Mediated Dualism to Mitigated Dualism as I'm faily sure that Mitigated is the right term. Never heard of Mediated Dualism. If I'm wrong please change back rather than revert, as I made a few other explanatory changes as well. Ernie G C P Spiggot 17:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

please clarify
Hi, everyone. Congratulations to all collaborators on a good article here. I have spent some time researching early Christianity-related wikis and saved gnosticism for last, as I thought I already knew a little bit about it, at least enough to inform my other readings.

Now that I have read this article, I find I have even more very basic questions than I did before I read it, so perhaps revealing them to you would help you make this article more informative for people who do not have much background knowledge of gnosticism.

1. My notions of gnosticism included the idea that it was a specifically Christian sect. Or was it an older philosphy which developed a Christian slant in the first century, or was Christian gnosticism merely one branch of gnosticism? If it was specifcally Christian I think it would be good to make that point up front, like in the first sentence, because the article pointing out the very many influences of gnosticism make it appear that Christian gnosticism was possibly just one variety.

2. Was gnosticism ever organized? Were there Gnostic churches, Gnostic liturgy, a Gnostic ecclesiastic heirarchy? If not, why not? And how was it disseminated? Surely most people of the time couldn't read the scrolls we have access to today. Was it a belief system of the intellectual elite, or was it developed to the point of a popular religion?

'''I reworked the intro so that it should give clearer insight on your questions. Not really room to get into the liturgy/churches etc, but we might want to add these kind of details in a section on Christian Gnosticism. The answer is yes, there were/are Churches, Liturgy, an Ecclesiastic hierarchy. Sarastro777 03:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)'''


 * I think an article, or at least a section on this page, about Gnostic Christianity/Christian Gnosticism would be great. I keep hearing that term and wondering exactly how it differs from plain ol' Gnosticism. Ric 12:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try grouping the movements "schools" below by some broader categories so we can work towards this. Let me know what you think! Sarastro777 19:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, while I know a bit about the subject at hand, I am not sure if I am able to use the computer controls as well as I would like in order to answer. There are a number of historical inaccuracies in this article that I would like to help with. As for the two questions posted above; whether Gnosticism was originally Christian is something still debated by scholars (and sometimes it has been a question of whether Christianity was originally Gnostic). For question number 2, absolutely the various Gnostic sects were organized. We are talking about a modern term meant to talk about an ancient category (like the word "neanderthal"). One of the qualifying attributes of these organizations was that they were initiatory.... a methodology that is quite heavily organized. Gnosticism was never popular, but did have popular elements. It often saw popular religion (such as wider Christian thinking) as an external, or "exoteric", link. I really think this piece needs a reworking in order to reflect historical developments. PMCV July 16

refutation and thanks
I would like to conclude to say that this article used to say that Jesus taught a variation of Gnosticism, and one of those refrences I would like to refute would be: "hearning you will hear and shall not understand, and seeing you will not preceive; for the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they sould see with thgeir eyes and hear with their ears, lest they shoulkd understand with their hearts and turn. So that I should heal them." (Matthew 13:14-15 and read Isaiah 6:9,10)But, thankfully someone has removed that so-called reference and replaced it with more correct ones and also hope to refute the popular novel THE DAVINCI CODE by Dan Brown.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Researchergonechristian (talk • contribs) 17:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Gnosticism in modern times
This section needs heavy reworking, and I'd say that in form it currently stands in, the article would be better-off without it. First of all, it's not a bit about modern gnosticism. Also, why is Schopenhauer given such prominence? He wasn't really important for Gnosticism. May-hem 19:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with May-hem. This section does not live up to the standard found in the rest of the article.  I would say it should be redone or scrapped.--Will3935 23:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fathers of Christian Gnosticism and Early Gnosticism: Stubs need work
Most_wanted_articles was crying for Fathers of Christian Gnosticism and Early Gnosticism, so I created stubs for these. Ultra, ultra stubs. Please add content to these as appropriate. -- Writtenonsand 16:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the list of blogs appropriate?
Is the list of blogs appropriate in an encyclopeadia article? Alan Liefting 07:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say no with a slight reservation. First, blogs are not good scholarly sources for research.  Second, all of these blogs seem to have to do with "modern gnositicism," a small and poorly written part of the article.  Third, I have found that such blogs are usually linked by their creators to create more traffic for their blog (a violation of Wikipedia policy).  The only reservation I would add is that I think it would be fair to leave a few of the most prominent blogs linked to enable readers to get a taste of modern gnosticism first hand.  Still, someone with more knowledge of these blogs than I have should whittle the list down to size.  Good point, Alan.--Will3935 05:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Intro too long
The lead-in section is too long. The MoS dictates that it should be at most three paragraphs. I'm not sure how to shorten it, but wanted to make other editors aware of the article guidelines on the matter. -999 (Talk) 14:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This page could use some re-organizing. We have definitional fights seperated (at the beginning and end), and try to explain concepts in several disparate places. Bmorton3 20:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Article too long
Yes, I think the article is too long. I am especially concerned about the Important terms and concepts section. This duplicates information in the articles about the concepts themselves. So we probably shouldn't break it off into a separate article. We should probably shorten the discussion of each term/concept and use the template to redirect to the main article on each term/concept... -999 (Talk) 21:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good approach. SquirleyWurley 05:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Relation to Hermeticism?
Can anyone tell me about the relationship of gnosticism and hermeticism if there is one. chur. --Tapsell 13:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, on a very restrictive defintions of Gnosticism, Hermeticism is similar to it but nothing more. On a medium restrictive definitions, Hermeticism is an influence on some Gnosticism (especially Valentinians).  On a very broad definitions of Gnosticism, Hermeticism is a form of Gnosticism.  In any case, it seems to have developed somewhat in parallel with other forms of Gnosticism. Bmorton3 16:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I just picked up Gnosis and Hermeticism (From Antiquity to Modern Times) edited by Broek and Hanegraaff, haven't had the chance to read it yet, but it might be worth looking at.

Hermeticism doesn't have a concept of a malevolent or negative Demiurge who creates the world of Matter as opposed to Spirit (ie it is not dualistic). In the Hermetica the Demiurge is the Sun who works for God benevolently. Hermeticism also has no real cosmologogy including figures such as the Sophia or Christ as it either predates Christianity or is contemporaneous with its inception (interestingly though Hermeticism shares an enormous amount of imagery with Judeo-Christian tradition - a similar creation myth for instance). It concieves of the Universe being entirely an expression of Mind, or God, or the Divinity with Man as the only created being who is able to experience and communicate with God. There are different and sometimes contradictory statements about the relationship between God and Matter - in the Libellius God is inherent in everything so everything is Divine (cf Blake - 'Every thing that lives is Holy'). Elsewhere Matter is seen as being a block to our connection with God, which has more in common with Gnosticism. Hermeticism has no rituals attached to it, it is purely conceptual/philosophical in nature, which is why no-one has ever tried to make a religion out of it. Where it really seems to have a similarity with Gnosticism is in the belief that Man can achieve knowledge of God (Gnosis) and thus transcend his earthly existence and become Divine: 'Gods are immortal Men, Men are mortal Gods'. Hope this helps. For a set of beliefs which have had such an enormous influence on Western culture it is amazingly hard to get hold of copies of the Hermetica. ThePeg 15:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In Gnostism I believe there is the idea of illusion within the material universes due to the fallen souls believing in their own Godness. For instance, Yaltaboath not being able to see Sophia, as he is illusioned into believing he is all there is. In this case, malevolence is somewhat a harsh label. A child may hurt you, but not intentionally, he is just ignorant. One should not promote an idea that Gnostics believe that men are mortal Gods. Whilst factually, our souls are qualitatively as God (made of the same roots), man kind are certainly not equal to God in knowledge because one jigsaw piece does not make an image. God is quantitatively superior to human souls due to everything in both spiritual and material worlds are (directly or indirectly) creations of God. What knowledge one needs to reach ascension or transcendence is that which can help one's soul to percieve one's true self and one's true relationship to God. One cannot achieve all Gods knowledge, but one can realise the path to a new relationship with him. Matter is not a block to a connection with God, because matter is made by God. It is the false conception of the human body and mind being misidentified as the self which prevents connection with God. The body is a vessel for the soul, yet the body's wants can often control one's actions if one allows the body to dictate priorities. If one is trying to gratify one's senses (more than is required for substainance) as a goal for one's life, one cannot serve God. All men are born with souls which are akin to a rock before the sculpting. Gnosis or 'God science' can lead to the chipping away of our illusion of self Godness, replacing it with the realization of self as a willing loving working part of God. In order to attain salvation by gnosis, one must use knowledge to carry out penance, sacrificing one's body's wants/desires in order to become attuned to Gods needs. God is the ultimate father and all living beings are dependent upon him. The highest state of human liberation is to lovingly serve the fathers needs ahead of one's own desires for gratification. True gnosticism is about combining God knowledge with wisdom, courage and penance (sacrifice for God). Some gnostics believe that Yaltaboath created the material galaxies and planets and material bodies of all living creatures as part of his penance to God (thus allowing a platform for other living beings to find salvation). This being a perfect example of how living beings can overcome their illusioned concept of self to serve God. In many ways, matter is like a prison for fallen souls. As a normal prison rewards good behaviour of the inmates, so one can recieve ascension to the spirtual world when one completes one's penance. Matter is only a prison when one has selfish goals and desires. Indeed, matter's rules prevent us from ever being fully able to get our own selfish way. One should consider the human mind to be a structure for which the soul may operate in, for the purpose of discovering one's true self and true relation as willing servitor to God. As such, animal minds are not structured in a way that such realization if possible for the souls trapped within them.86.4.59.203 00:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)icnivad.

Gnosticism
is a noun describing the beliefs. Gnostic is an adjective associated with it. Whoever wrote the article got the grammar wrong. A gnostic can refer to an individual who believes in gnosticism so I suppose that what is described in the article (a collection of religious groups) is best described 'Gnostic Groups'. P.S. The word 'matrix' is used in several scientific contexts and, according to one dictionary, has been so used for five hundred years after being derived from a latin word for womb  20:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)mikeL
 * "Gnosticism" is a word coined by Herny More in 1669 to refer to groups of people not beliefs (see Bentley Layton's Prolegomena to the Study of Ancient Gnosticismp. 348-9). The word has changed much since then, and many different scholars have attempted to put their own spin on it.  The adjective Gnostic, has been used for a variety of purposes unrelated to the word Gnosticism, it comes from the term gnosis which is a far more common word in Greek than gnostikoi.  'Gnostic groups' would thus include many other groups besides those refered to by the term Gnosticism, in More's sense or the more recent ones.  Scholars have been fighting over the meaning of the word Gnosticism even very recently, see William's book length discussion of the many issues involved here, cited in the article, if you wish to opine on what the word "ought" to mean. Bmorton3 21:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

From Chasmbers Dictionary on the web:- "Gnosticism; noun. the doctrines of the Gnostics." and "gnostic adj 1 relating to knowledge, especially mystical or religious knowledge.etc." Or try 'http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gnosticism', and 'http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gnostic'  for fuller definitions. 82.47.176.254 08:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)mikeL
 * First notice how much broader the term "gnostic" is than the term "Gnosticism" even on this def. Second, if some dictionaries opine that the -ism word refers to the doctrines rather than the whole social phenomena, then so be it, notice that even this definitions focuses on the groups of people "the Gnostics" (capitalized).  Personally I think -ism endings frequently refer to a whole social phenomenal rather than just the doctrines (think Socialism, Confucianism, or Agrarianism) but I guess not every dictionary agrees.  Alter the grammar as you see fit. Bmorton3 16:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"Male" biblical God vs "hermaphroditic" gnostic
The text previously described the "creator god associated with Biblical texts" as "explicitly male" -this is apparently intended to contrast with the gnostic "'he' is seen as being hermaphroditic". There is no citation given to support either the gnostic concept of the hermaphroditic "God" or of the biblical as being "explicity male".

It's safe to say that in contrast to the gods of the Greco/Roman pantheon, who possessed clearcut gender and repeatedly had sexual relations with mortal women that produced numerous offspring, the biblical god is nowhere depicted as "explicitly male". Church tradition has assigned implicit male gender to God but neither the church nor the texts assign "explicit" gender.

Without similar citation of equivalent texts proving the "hermaphroditic" nature of the gnostic divinity, it may be best to remove that part of the text as well. I'm not familiar enough with gnostic texts myself to be able to state that such a concept does not exist within them, but it seems unlikely to me that a gnostic text would assign any "explicit" gender, even hermaphroditic, to God. Kenjacobsen 20:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I can help shed some light. The One, the Monad, the Dazzling Darkness, whatever you wish to call it, itsn't hermaphroditic in the usual sense of the word, but rather, above form and gender... it's really hard to explain in modern thought, but... it's kind of similer to the Buddhist view of Nirvana, except as a being instead of a place. It is everything and nothing.

According to Valentinian Gnosticism, as described by Ptolemy, there is a first principle, the godhead. This first principle is personified as male. However, this godhead has a counterpart or consort, often called Thought, Deep, or Silence. This counterpart is refered to in female terms. The "male" aspect of God, then, in very simplified terms, has ideas which the "female" aspect then brings into reality. It should be noted that there was apparently some disagreement among the followers of Valentinus whether god should rightly be reffered to as a monad or a dyad because of this male/female nature. In other words, are the male and female aspects of God best described as one being or as two? Just in passing, I think that "androgynous" is a better term in this context, as "hermaphroditic" connotes the possession of reproductive organs. Girlfawkes 08:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

We think of the Biblical God as strictly male only because of our tendency to translate all the different names of God in the original Hebrew and Greek into the word 'God'. In fact in the Old Testament in particular there are many names for God including 'Elohim' which literally translates as 'HE-SHE/GODS' or GODS/GODDESSES. In other words Elohim is not only Male and Female but Plural - while simultaneously being One (fun, isn't it?). The Kaballists have always identified God as having both Male and Female characteristics which split off into Feminine and Masculine energies as the Emanations of God descend to the Earth (Binah, Gevurah, Hod as Female energies, Chokmah, Chesed and Netzach as Male). God itself unites and transcends gender. It is we who get stuck on gender definitions. In fact in the Book of Genesis this is made clear in the most confusing line: 'God made Man in His own image: both Male and Female created He them'. The concept of the Hieros Gamos is based on the idea that through love and lovemaking Male and Female could be reunited and thus experience the Divine. This of course, was more than just a quick shag but a sacred act. And having said that, I would agree with the poster above who says that Andryogynous is a better word than Hermaphroditic in this context. ThePeg 15:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * God the father = metaphor for one whos' ethos is to serve others despite sacrificing one's own wants, one who's actions/judgement are never affected by the malice or ignorance of others. We could expand upon Gods personality ad-infinitum. In any case, God the Father has nothing to do with sex gender. Feminie personal characteristics also do not mean God has a female gender. God's body may have genders, but the metaphors used refer to his personality, and the various aspects of it. Same way as a man can have feminine characteristics without having a vigina and vice versa.86.4.59.203 00:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)He/she man.

Orphism & Gnosticism
Might another root of Gnosticism be Orphism. This holds that Man contains within him the mixed essence of the Divine, as embodied by the remains of Dionysus's ashes, and the Material, the ashes of the Titans burned with Dionysus. In this Orphic legend Man is created out of the mixed ashes of the two which explained to the Thracians why the soul was trapped in the body and had to undergo constant reincarnations before it could go free - an idea later taken up by the Cathars. ThePeg 15:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hindu vedic scripture describe living beings in the material world as being a mixture of two aspects of Gods energy. There is the first aspect of external energy (or that which makes up matter), and the spiritual internal energy aspect of God (that which makes up the souls). The likely root of all religions may predate even hinduism. Gnosticism may take from buddhist and vedic philosophy, as many greeks/hebrews traded along the middle east and into the sindu vallies of northern India. Indeed, Greek and Aramaic writtings were found dating to first century Hindustan. It is also possible that Jesus himself visited Persia, Afganistan and India before resurfaceing age 30 to start his missionary in Israel. Some see the buddist aspects of Jesus' teachings as support of this theory.86.4.59.203 00:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Holger.

Plagiarism
This article contains unsourced quotations from the Kurt Rudolph book.

The article:


 * This presented a problem for the heresiologists writing on gnostic movements: as this mode of behaviour was one which they themselves favoured and supported, the Church Fathers, it seemed, would be required perforce to offer support to the practices of their theological opponents. In order to avoid this, a common heresiological approach was to avoid the issue completely by resorting to slanderous (and, in some cases, excessive) allegations of libertinism, or to explain Gnostic asceticism as being based on incorrect interpretations of scripture, or simply duplicitous in nature. Epiphanius provides an example when he writes of the 'Archontics' 'Some of them ruin their bodies by dissipation, but others feign ostensible fasts and deceive simple people while they pride themselves with a sort of abstinence, under the disguise of monks'.

Rudolph:


 * The Church Fathers are divided over this Gnostic attitude, for they themselves in the main favored and supported the trend towards abstemiousness in Christianity. Therefore, they either resorted to the simple expedient of slander or made out the asceticism to be sheer dissimulation and duplicity, as Epiphaneous writes of the Archontics: "Some of them ruin their bodies by dissipation, but others feign ostensible fasts and deceive simple people whilst they pride themselves with a sort of abstinence, under the disguise of monks." (p. 257 in my edition)

The article:


 * Charges of Gnostic libertinism arguably find their source in the works of Irenaeus. According to this writer, Simon Magus (whom he has identified as the prototypical source of Gnosticism) founded the school of moral freedom ('amoralism'). Irenaeus reports that Simon's argument, that those who put their trust in him and his consort Helen, need trouble themselves no further with the biblical prophets or their moral exhortations and are free 'to do what they wish', as men are saved by his (Simon's) grace, and not by their 'righteous works' (adapted from Adversus Haereses, I.23.3).


 * Simon is not known for any libertinistic practice, save for his curious attachment to Helen, typically reputed to be a prostitute. There is, however, clear evidence in the Testimony of Truth that followers of Simon did, in fact, get married and beget children, so a general tendency to asceticism can likewise be ruled out.

Rudolph:


 * According to Irenaeus, Simon Magus founded moral "freedom" in association with his own role as reddemer in the following manner: Those who put their in him (and his consort Helen), should trouble themselves no further with the (biblical) prophets (to whom according to Jewish belief Moses belonged) because they were "inspired" by the "angels who created the world", "but that they should as free men do what they wish: for through his (Simon's) grace are men saved, and not through righteous works. Nor are the works just by nature, but by convention (accidens), as the angels who made the world ordained, in order to enslave men by such precepts." The grace (of the spirit) cancels out the law; a formulation familiar also to Paul which Marcion then extended into a reformation of the Gospel, without however paying homage to libertinism. Simon also did not have a reputation for libertine practices (apart from the curious liason with the prostitute Helen)... There is clear evidence in the Testimony of Truth (probably third century) that "the Som[on]ians take wi[ves] (and) beget children." (p. 257)

I believe the person who copied the text had the same edition I do. At one place it says:


 * Fundamentally, however, gnostic movements appear to take the 'ancient schema of the two ways, which leaves the decision to do what is right to human endeavour and promises a reward for those who make the effort, and punishment for those who are negligent' (Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, 262).

It is found on that page in my edition.

There are probably other examples which I didn't notice. A.J.A. 06:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats alright so long as sources are labelled, maybe you could be kind enough to reference them for the article?86.4.59.203 00:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Joe

Old Testament God + Satan
Given the often hash/murderous commands of the God in Torah ( Chistian Old Testemnt ? ) would it be fair to typify the Gnostic postion as "your God, my Satan". I ask this to help resolve a conflict. thanks...Wblakesx 20:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)wblakesx


 * First I'm going to say "Absolutely not!," and then I'm going to qualify that to some extent. Traditionally, Gnostics see the creator god, or Demiurge, as being ignorant and somewhat capricious. This is why we have things like war, disease, natural disasters, and the the whole great grab-bag of suffering that we are stuck with.  The Gnostics do traditionally identify the god of the Old Testament as the Demiurge, in contrast to the True God whom Jesus preaches. So, yes the god of the Old Testament isn't all-good or even all-powerful.  However, he is not wholly evil either, and should by no means be identified with Satan.

Girlfawkes 07:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, here's the problem with the fact that there was never a single movement called 'the Gnostics' but a host of movements with 'Gnostic' elements which we now call 'Gnostics'. The Cathars who were definitely operating within the Gnostic tradition did identify the Demiurge with Satan and conflated the God of the Old Testament with him too. They regarded the created world as inherently sinful and the product of Satan designed to trap and deceive the soul into forgetting its relationship with God. Thus they reasoned that the OT God was Satan as the true God would not have created the world. To them the OT God was mad, like Jaldabaoth, vengeful, destructive and believed it was the creator and that there was no God above him ('I the Lord thy God am a jealous God', 'Thou shalt have no other God before me'etc). This rejectionist view of the OT God was one of the things which shook the Catholic Church so badly and so brought their wrath down on the Cathars. Similarly the semi-Gnostic Christian leader Marcion believed that the Old Testament God had to be rejected. So in fact the issue of the OT God = Satan is not unrelated to Gnosticism. ThePeg 23:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * True that the concept is not unrelated, but, with the exception of the teachings of Catharism (what we know of them), it is an oversimplification. While the Cathars had much in common with Manichaeanism and other gnostic traditions, they were the first to actually equate the Old Testament god with Satan himself. From what I understand, this view might be derived from, or even an adaptation to, the contemporary mainstream Catholic worldview.

Girlfawkes 07:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right that the primary instance of of equating the OT God with Satan is the belief of the Cathars (although you'd probably have to add he Bogomils to that too). But my point was really to show up the fallacy of believing that there was a coherent movement known as Gnosticism. All one can really say is that there are Gnostic faiths, not that there was one such faith. Do you see what I mean? I'm not clear as to when Catholicism ever said that Satan was the OT God. One of the articles of faith of Catholicism was that Christ's coming was a confirmation of OT prophecies. One of the Church's fears of Catharism was its undermining of the OT as foundation of the NT. Good to debate. Please say more. :-) ThePeg 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Remember that bonifide devotee's of God can be served/respected as you would a God. Jesus himself promotes himself as a conduit of God and even people call him 'son of God', indicating his divinity/realization. There has been parallels drawn between Satan, Yaltaboath/demiurge, Jehovah (YHWA) and Brahma (creator demigod in Hinduism). All of these personalities start off ignorant of God, yet under go penance in order to develop their awareness. Yet upon achieving their penance, they strive to guide mankind and other living entities within our universe towards serving God. One of the problems with western Christian tradition and modern Jewish belief is that reincarnation is left out of the story. In this way, death is seen as the end, and the harsh acts of Jehovah in the Bible are seen as un christian. Yet in Hinduism reincarnation and karma play a role. One can be righly punished in one life for the transgressions of another life, and death is not the end of the souls material journey. If one embraces the ideas of reincarnation and karma, one see's the actions of Jehovah as part of his job maintaining the gnosis amoung the Jewish people as a righteous purpose (even though at face value he seems demonically cruel in some actions).86.4.59.203 00:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Ravi.

His Dark Materials
Someone should add something on the Gnosticism inherent in the His Dark Materials Trilogy by Philip Pullman. In this there is a war in heaven against the Authority, a false God who is described as having got in the way of Man and the True God (I wonder if Pullman remembers writing that?). As Blake and Milton were huge inspirations for the books its not suprising they are full of rebellious Gnostic imagery. ThePeg 23:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

gnosis
it would probably be a good idea to add something in the gnosis section that has something to do with receiving the gnosis (or central knowledge) and being spirtitually perfect after recieving it.+SPQR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by +SPQR (talk • contribs) 02:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

masonic
I am doing some research between gnosticism and masonry and does anyone know some similarities?

Masonry is an amalgam of Hermetic, Kaballistic, Alchemical and Rosicrucian ideas as well as Judeo-Christian ones. Founded in England in the 1700s it was a means of preserving these esoteric and exoteric religions in a form which could survive in a world which was hostile to such ideas. Where it differed to many of the previous movements is in its investment of the ideas in Architecture. Masonic ideology is to do with the Sacred Geomatry of Architecture as embodied in the measurements of the Temple of Solomon in the Bible. That is why Architecture is so important to the Masons and you will find recurring images in buildings built by Masonic architects - cupolas, columns of certain dimensions etc.

It is believed that all the abovementioned movements are inherently Gnostic in principle and origin. The word Gnosis is used in the Hermetica, for instance and esoteric tradition states that movements such as Alchemy and Kaballah are continuation of the ideology of the Egyptian Hermetica (known as the Egyptian Gnosis by modern Rosicrucian Jan Van Rickenborgh) as is the concept of death and rebirth - a very important part of the symbology and ritual of Freemasonry. If Gnosis is defined as the transformation of the human soul to higher forms of being through direct GNOSIS of the Divine then Masonry is a Gnostic movement, although it doesn't have a concept of a Demiurge or imagery of the Sophia as such - unless one sees the Hieros Gamos as contained in the idea of the szyzgy of Christ and Sophia.

If you want to find more check out www.gnosis.org. ThePeg 22:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * One shouldn't get too caught up on masonic beliefs, partly because there are no beliefs inherent to the organization of masonary. It is the ethos of the masons that what ever beliefs you hold, you must swear to act upon them. That is why during initiation to a lodge, one must take one's religious scripture and symbolically swear an oath to it. Some masons may have been Gnostics, but masons come in all religions.86.4.59.203 00:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)icnivad.

Expert needed?
What sort of expertise is needed for this article? I've studied the subject in a college setting since 2000 and am in my second year of graduate school studying Church History and the primary sources of Gnosticism. I am about halfway to a MA degree in Coptic studies. Do I count as an "expert" yet?

I am confident I could hammer out some of the problems and inconsistencies because I am up to date on much of the cutting edge reading on the topic. However, the last twenty years of Gnostic studies have greatly challenged some pre-existing charicatures of Gnosticism that were established by a lack of primary sources and heresiological complications in the period between the 19th century and the 1950s. There is a distinct chance that I could draw ire from some of the other editors of this article who are educated in the old paradigm. 68.239.64.214 18:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)sparkwidget


 * Just be sure to carefully cite your sources. Unreferenced claims will likely be removed if they run counter to expectations. However, if you are judicious in citing your sources, it is more likely your edits will stick. Beyond that, be bold!Vassyana 02:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * One thing you will learn at uni/college is that nobody is a master of all knowledge. Anybody can read a book, that does not make one an expert. Anybody can learn, but it doesn't make one wise. Anybody can edit wiki, expert or not. It is how you argue your case for change that will determine how sucessfull an editor you can become. It is not necessary to hammer out contradictory views or problems, as wiki supports NPOV. As long as your view is sourced, it can be considered along with the others.86.4.59.203 01:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Sly.

Since nobody has been able to address the concerns of a drive by tagger and an editor who has specifically requested more information, I've removed the tag. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's an idea. I don't care, so don't give me "drive-by tagger". Somebody who does care originally tagged it, & other people who do care decided to leave it. Complain to them.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  00:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't "care", you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. The tag was added by User:Sam Spade at 15:04, 9 March 2006  Sam's user account was retired on on 19 April 2007.  As you can see above, User:68.239.64.214 questioned what type of expertise was required at  18:27, 21 February 2007.  Since there has been no outstanding request that can be met, the tag has been removed.  Hope that helps. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey I'll tell ya what we dont need. That is "drive by name calling". Sam Spade was trying to do the right thing when he labeled the article with the tag. To Depict him as ambigious in his activities is deragatory. Sam labeled the article because lots of things are said in it with no sourcing. Lots of things posted with no clear indication of were the data or opinion is coming from. I dont really care if you remove the label. I do care that you are implying Sam was acting inappropriately. It is not acting in good faith that you state he labeled the article for no reason.
 * "He was doing a drive by edit"? You dont know why he did it, so stop assuming. Sam was an awesome editor and very kind collaborator. Have some respect for someone who is not activite here and can not be present to defend themselves. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You have an active imagination. I wasn't even referring to Sam in that context, and I got along just fine with him when he was here. Viriditas (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you even tried to contact Sam before doing any of this? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No. As his user page says, "This user is no longer active on Wikipedia."  Contacting people off-wiki is not always appropriate unless they specifically say so on their user page. Also, there is no reason to contact a user off-wiki, especially a user who no longer uses Wikipedia, just to remove a maintenance tag. Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think Sam was alright and hope he had reasons for leaving other then negativity. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

A List of Gnostic Writings
Can someone kindly make a section on a list of Gnostic writings. I think it would be easier to research than to pick between the various sections & paragraphs looking for them.

Thanks

Bill (Mar7, 2007)


 * Good idea Bill, off you go! 86.4.59.203 01:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)joe

Revert recent edits by Wmgreene
I have reverted recent edits by Wmgreene, these seem to reflect an non-neutral and unencyclopedic view of the subject. Statements like:


 * allows even a non-biblical scholar to transcend the difficulties of biblical interpretation caused by any-and-all of the superimposed fallacies of the Gnostics.

implies that Gnosticism is a fallacy, which is an opinion, not a fact, and makes assumptions about the readers competence, which is intimidating. Much the rest of the prose is written in the same tone. Therefore it has been removed in accordance with the NPOV,

Nixdorf 22:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * NPOV has been breached by suggesting that opinions of canonical texts are more valid than those of non-canonical one's. It is correct to change such edits, as this person has attempted to sabbotage views that he doesn't agree with, which is against wiki policy.86.4.59.203 01:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Oracle.

Introduction: Where and when?
Could you write somewhere in the introduction where and when gnosticism existed. I'm sure I could find it further down, but it needs to be in the introduction. --Apoc2400 07:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Technically speaking Gnosticism has existed since religious/spiritual exploration began. In the West we have records of Gnosis in ancient Egypt, Persia (Zoroastrianism), Israel (Essenes/Kaballah) & Greece (Orphism) all from before the birth of Christ. Gnostic Christianity existed side by side with the orthodox Church for several centuries, went underground but returned in the guise of the Cathars and Bogomils in the Middle Ages (and, technically speaking, reemerged in the Lollard and Free Spirit sects in northern Europe and England). After the Inquisition Gnosticism went into secret esoteric societies like the Rosicrucians, the Hermeticists and the Freemasons and reemerged into plain view in the late 19th/early 20th centuries through organisations such as the Theosophists, the Hermetic Order Of The Golden Dawn and the Lectorium Rosicrucianum.

In the East, the Bagavad Gita has much in common with Gnostic ideas, as does Sufism (Sufis commonly use the term 'Gnostic' in their texts) and some forms of Buddhism. In short, Gnosticism is a universal human phenomenon. Wherever someone seeks a more direct, transcendent experience of God or the Divine you will find Gnosticism in action. ThePeg 12:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the introduction should be straight forward saying "The origin of gnostic christianity is sometime during the 1st century AD, yet knowbody know's when the first scripture's were written". That is the factual truth, as knowbody know's for sure when any of the Gospels were first scribed. Yes we have dated surviving early Christian texts, but of course nobody knows if other copies once out there were written earlier. As for the philosophy of the Gnostics, we can hypothesize that the idea's match Hindu vedic ideas from which all religion probably sprang. The problem with that statement is that it is unsourceable and unmeasurable. What would be better is a section on the history of the different branches of Gnosticism. I think one should source one's history section, as many books have dealt with this. Hearsay accounts are not worth adding.86.4.59.203 01:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Oracle.

Introduction misconceptions.
I have a problem with the mood of the introduction. It seems to suggest that gnosticism is associated with Christianity, when factually gnostic sects were branches of early christianity. The NT canon is the roman view of Christianity, but it is only one view that focus' on issues regarding the resurrection as being vital to salvation. Gnosticism focus' on works and knowledge as being vital to salvation. Yet both sects would consider the sayings of the Gospel of Thomas to be teachings of Jesus. One shouldn't promote the ideas in Gnosticism to be anti-christian or anti-Jewish. Gnostics have certain scripture containing information not included in Jewish or Roman Catholic scripture's. That has led Gnostics to having a different perspective upon events concerning the creation of the universe etc. But fundamentally, Christ teachings (the basis for Christianity) are shared by both sects. I prepose a sentence stating that gnosticism follows christian teachings, yet promotes scripture's and information not included into the majoritivly popular Roman Church NT bible. One should not overstate the differences between gnostic belief and those of other Christian sects, as its spitting hairs.86.4.59.203 01:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Yoda.
 * ...Except that Christianity does not view the Creation of the Earth as as a bad thing. At all. They may have both been based on what people though Jesus said, but they are inherently contradictory, moreso than any two "Christian" sects. Unless you view being Christian as mentioning Christ, then Gnosticism is in no way a Christian sect, as Christianity implies not rejecting the God of the Old Testament.KrytenKoro 10:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * IMHO you hold the definition of Christianity in the Nicene Creed (which unify very many Christian sects) out of the picture, Gnostics cannot possibly accept it, thus making it non-Christian. Nixdorf 13:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They certainly would not be part of mainstream Christianity today, but defining Christianity as holding to the Nicene Creed is POV.--RLent (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Gnostic saints CFD
Category:Gnostic saints has been nominated for deletion: see Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 23.

I think it would be useful there to have input from editors with expertise in gnosticism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification. I've responded at the CfD, and have also noted the apparent source of this list. IPSOS (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Which other sources there are for the idea of Gnostic Saints besides Aleister Crowley? That guy is a notorious liar who enjoyed shocking people for the heck of it. Definitely not a reliable source for anything at all. Luis Dantas 15:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fifth Horseman?
Anybody know the source of this, claimed to be Extinction or Oblivion, in the Gnostic gospel? Trekphiler 05:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

criticism against criticism
Section 'Gnosticism' as a potentially flawed category ends with
 * This sort of denotational rigidity is acceptable within academic circles but cannot be reasonably expected to dictate common usage of the term within the vernacular, any more than attempts to restrict the use of buffalo to exclude bison in United States English have been successful.

which is a severely biased statement from someone defending the term (who-so-ever). Such statements should be reformulated to a NPOV defense for usage of the term "gnosticism" strengthened by citations. As it is now, the statement is almost unacceptable, but represents an opposing view, that may remain for a while on our grace, so that someone may fix it. Said: Rursus 18:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. As it is uncited, I shall remove it. If someone has said this and it can be cited, then of course it can be returned to the article. IPSOS (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Suppressed
Hey allot of claims have been made about the repression and or persecution of the various gnositic sects. I have limited and no where near the historical evidence that would justify the comments made like say in the gnostic article ophites or this one. So gentlemen and ladies I respectfully ask to show your sources also post some numbers. Here I'll help start the process, the anti roman anti orthodox/catholic and arian emperor Huneric and heres another Paulicianism. Also why is the christian repression mentioned which would mean it did not happen until Christianity became the state religion which was much later then the heyday of gnosticism around 150AD. Why no mention of pagan anti-gnostic persecution? This article is not only inaccurate it is very misleading. Could we work together and try to fix the misinformation like issues addressed here or here  and here  and here ? LoveMonkey 21:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, why is there nothing in this article about the persecution or repression of gnosticism? Apparently (based on remarks of the person above) references to Christian persecution of gnosticism  were removed... And now this article includes nothing about it even though anti-gnosticism is a frequent part of the early Christian Church literature... How does that work?  Who would have removed it?  Christian evangelicals? In addition, there should be references to "pagan" or other religious groups who required the "one-size-fits-all" necessity of the human religious experience such as Islam or less obvious religious movements... Stevenmitchell (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Strange wording in the article
This is probably just me nitpicking, but I'm a bit concerned about this line:

"We can only rely upon contemporary written claims and accounts, but this writer will attempt to grapple with some evidence to show that there is reason to question the accuracy of these claims."

"This writer?" Who is "this writer?" That sort of language is appropriate when writing an academic paper, but in an encyclopedia it's rather suspicious. Common shortcuts you see all over Wiki have made me wonder if this line was copied directly out of one of the sited webpages. I apologize for not checking myself. But even if it's not, it really feels out of place. Wiki is not the place for an unknown writer to analyze, dissect and explain. It should anonymously present already accepted information.


 * Yeah, given that section I doubt this is plagiarism and more a good-meaning editor trying to type in essay form. Nonetheless, it needs to be changed: The article can't have one viewpoint unless that viewpoint is overwhelmingly accepted (unlike an essay which has to postulate one position), and it needs to be written anonymously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.44.122 (talk) 02:04, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Tag
Plagiarism, and that the mentioned section thus suffers from un-encyclopedic tone, as mentioned.

Introduction misconceptions.

KrytenKoro 14:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Supreme Being vs Supreme Architech
Wondering if anyone has any info or done research on a possible connection between the Supreme Being and the demiurge of Gnosticism and the lower god and Supreme Architech of Free Masonary? It's my understanding that the Free Masons do not prescribe to one religion, but do require a belief in a Supreme Architech, When looking at the origins of Free Masonary, on the surface it seems one could easily draw parralles with Gnostcism. Any thoughts on this from others with knowledge of both topics?

Spiritheart 23:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt there's any serious connection between the two. The Free Masons promote the belief in a non-distinct higher power, while accepting the religions and beliefs of its members. Basically, to be a Free Mason you have to believe in some sort of HIGHER POWER like Jehovah, or Allah. The nameless, infinite being, residing above the Demiurge in the Gnostic belief system is just as good a candidate as any, as well as possibly even the Demiurge himself.

On topic, however, this really isn't the place for this sort of discussion, as it has no place whatsoever in the actual article. -KriticKill (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View and Inadequate References
I have flagged this article with the POV flag and inadequate sources flag primarily in response to the following passage:

The relationship between Gnosticism and Christianity during the early first and the whole of the second century is specially interesting in helping us to further understand the main doctrines of Gnosticism. The age of the Gnostics was eager for novelties in religion, and addicted to fantastic superstitions. It was the fashion of the time to mingle philosophy, mythology, and magic. There was the more inducement to amend Christianity, because while it showed a life and power to which neither philosophy nor paganism could pretend, its teaching on creation out of nothing, on the resurrection of the body, on salvation through the sufferings and death of Christ the Son of God, ran counter to every prejudice of the pagan world. There was not a sect among all the countless sects of Gnosticism which did not deny each one of these three doctrines. Above all, the central idea of Gnosticism (a knowledge superior to and independent of faith) made it welcome to many who were half-converted from paganism to Christianity. Faith was for the multitude, knowledge for the few. The aristocratic instinct, that was the very soul of the Greek and Roman culture, revolted at the authority of a Church which imposed the same belief on all, and exacted the same submission from the philosopher and the barbarian slave. In a system of compromise, like Gnosticism, it escaped from this ignominy.

Claims such as "The age of the Gnostics was eager for novelties in religion" are singularly unhelpful. At best they represent an outmoded scholarly position. At worst they are simply and demonstrably not true. The age in which Gnostism developed was indeed religiously dynamic, but it is wrong to see this dynamism as a thirst for novelties.

The next mistake in this passage is to take Christianity in this period to be a unified and cohesive movement. It is a tenuous claim to make even of Christianity in modern times. Paul's letters should well illustrate the differences between by the fledgling churches. These churches can only have represented one aspect of Christianity in this period.

The continuation of this passage reads more like a sermon than an encyclopaedia article. This article should not be about condemning Gnosticism for failing to be Christian, rather it should more usefully chart the differences and similarities between the two, and attempt to place Gnosticism in its correct historical context.

Thomaschina03 10:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree and went ahead and changed it, see what you think. Fennessy 00:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Added see also link
I added the Nag Hammadi library to the see also list because I think it is important to the subject. If you feel differently then go ahead and remove it. Respectfully, Soonerzbt (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Misinformation about Manichaeism
The article contains the following passage, 'Early 3rd century–4th century Christian writers such as Hippolytus and Epiphanius write about a Scythianus, who visited India around 50 CE from where he brought "the doctrine of the Two Principles". According to Cyril of Jerusalem, Scythianus' pupil Terebinthus presented himself as a "Buddha" ("He called himself Buddas"[citation needed]). Terebinthus went to Palestine and Judaea ("becoming known and condemned"), and ultimately settled in Babylon, where he transmitted his teachings to Mani, thereby creating the foundation of Manichaeism: "But Terebinthus, his disciple in this wicked error, inherited his money and books and heresy, and came to Palestine, and becoming known and condemned in Judæa he resolved to pass into Persia: but lest he should be recognised there also by his name he changed it and called himself Buddas." —Cyril of Jerusalem, "Catechetical lecture 6"'

According to A. A. Bevan's article on Manichaeism in James Hastings' Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, nearly everything in this story is fiction (Bevan discusses a slightly different version of the story, but it's clearly basically the same thing). Scythianus and Terebinthus probably never existed. This story is interesting because it shows what some people believed about the origins of Manichaeism, but it is not reliable history and the article should clearly indicate this. Skoojal (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Update on this issue: editors are continuing to quote hostile Christian sources to portray an incorrect, distorted picture of Manichaeism (and of Gnosticims in general). Example:


 * "As Mani stated, "The true God has nothing to do with the material world or cosmos", and, "It is the Prince of Darkness who spoke with Moses, the Jews and their priests. Thus the Christians, the Jews, and the Pagans are involved in the same error when they worship this God. For he leads them astray in the lusts he taught them.""

This is also from the "Acta Archelai", a distorted anti-Manichaean document that certainly is not correctly portraying Manichaeism. There are numerous Manichaean documents available, and none of them contain these distorted "statements" from Mani.Jimhoward72 (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Modern Gnosticism
I suggest that the entire "modern Gnosticism" section in the external links be deleted. These are not links the stated purpose of which is education or information, rather they are links for churches promoting one or another brand or version of Gnosticism. As such, they are inappropriate. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  16:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. People need to review WP:EL.  Most of those links are just spam adverts to specific churches and are against Wiki policy.  I'm deleting. If a link on modern Gnosticism is found that explains the movement and does not list any specific church's address and worship times then it maybe acceptable. Something along the lines of this site on the Christianity page.  Also using a link depository like   can take all the Modern Gnostic links and display them here. Submit the churches to the  site so that a consensus fight doesn't keep reoccurring. It seems a few were already submitted.  I hope this satisfies all involved. (Sorry my edit descriptions were terrible.) Alatari (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that Gnostics had no idea of Christianity, and therefore Jesus. It was a section in Greek mythology, amongst deep philosophical thinkers and it was actually St John, or the author of the gospel John in the Bible that was influenced by Gnoscticism and adapted it in his portrayal of Jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.189.91 (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Current Gnostic's in Egypt
I heard that there is currently a new wave of Gnostic persecutions going on in Egypt. an anyone fill me in on that?(Spookybubbles (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

Burn, baby, burn
"dualistic heresy"? To Christians, maybe, but a bit POV for the rest of us, don't you think? TREKphiler  hit me ♠  23:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Digression on name of God
This digression on the name of God (introduction) in judaism has nothing to do with the subject; could we protect this page from anonymous reverts and contributions ? Xav71176 (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Gnosticism in Arabia
"The Egyptian Gnostic Basilideans referred to a figure called Abraxas who was at the head of 365 spiritual beings."

My question is perhaps a bit off-topic, but is there any link between these 365 spiritual beings and the story of the 365 idols of Mecca, as told by the early Muslim historians? I mean, is there any evidence or hypothesis that this form of Gnosticism had some influence on the old Arabian pagan relgion (or maybe was it the other way round?), or is it likely that the Gnostics somewhat influenced the Muslim traditions of the first centuries (as many of the converts to Islam were, I think, Gnostics), and that some of the stories retained by the historians of that time had some Gnostic elements in them, transfered to an Arabian setting (it is not unlikely either, as the Muslim accounts on pre-Islamic Arabia and Muhammad's life are obvioulsy romanced and mixed with legends, including things drown from Christianity)...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Persian schools
I deleted this:
 * "A feature that the Persian schools have in common, is that theyand used various dialects of Babylonian Aramaic - either Mandaean Aramaic or Syriac Aramaic (a feature they share with the writers of the Babylonian Talmud, their contemporaries, who wrote in Jewish Aramaic)."

While interesting, I don't see it's on point. If you can demonstrate a better connection than shared language, do restore it. TREKphiler  hit me ♠  09:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What it demonstrates, is that what is often called "Persian Gnosticism" was actually a product of Babylonian Aramaic culture. This is an important thing to point out, especially considering that Mandaeanism and Manichaeism, in this article, are being lumped together into some category called "Persian Gnosticism", which in itself is vague and creates an incorrect impression.Jimhoward72 (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but what it leaves me thinking is, "This is trivial junk." As a cultural factor, it needs more clarification than simply mentioning the language gives it. To the initiated, maybe it's enough; not to the rest of us.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  18:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So, I've re-added mention of Aramaic in passing. The so-called "Persian Gnosticism", is more specifically a Babylonian/Aramaic phenomena, and not a Persian/Zoroastrian phenomena.  If the article is going to go so far as to call it "Persian", it should clarify it to specifically what it was (ie. Babylonian/Aramaic).  Unless you want to change the article and stop calling it "Persian schools" altogether, and instead call it "Babylonian schools".  The only thing Persian about them is that Babylon happened to be located in the Persian empire at the time.  I'm just saying clarifying it down to Babylonian/Aramaic makes the article more accurate, instead of potentially misleading.Jimhoward72 (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

clarification
there was a call (up the page ) for some clarification on the term "gnostic". and please forgive me if i missed this in the main body of the article. also forgive that i can't cite this except to say that it generally comes from Pagels. the gnostics did not self identify as such, but were rather referred to as gnostics in an article written by (????) in the post constantine days. i understand that they were considered heretics by the official church of the day, however i think that this has to be considered untrue based on a technicality, namely that many of the so called gnostic movements predate the "official" christian church, and so cannot be said to be trying to introduce change to any previous cannon. or at least the point should be up for some serious dispute .Inforlife (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

excellent gnosticsm site
beware it has many wierd stuff www.xeeatwelve.com articles http://www.xeeatwelve.com/articles/personal_devil_2008.pdf http://www.xeeatwelve.com/articles/Eliminating%20Evil.pdf http://www.xeeatwelve.com/articles/eight_evil_minds.html the author is mrs amitakh stanford

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.47.2 (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Demiurge's Ignorance similar to Marvel's "Beynoder"
In brief, The Beyonder was considered to be the most powerful being in the universe, essentially God. Thinking himself all powerful, he eventually found not only were their others as powerful as him, but even more so (Kubik, The Celestials, The Living Tribunal etc.). MPA68.79.171.54 (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Neoplatonism and Gnosticism
I'm a bit concerned about the Neoplatonism and Gnosticism section of this article.

In an article that otherwise is of a reasonable if patchy standard, this section is more ropey than the rest. The opening reads too much like original research (even if it isn't, in reality) and is peppered with occasional weasel words: "if we compare different Sethian texts..."; "These early Sethians may be identical to..."; "It now seems clear...". While most of the inline citations are fine, one simply points somewhat obscurely to Amazon entries, without any page refs, and others give lengthy, unclear citations that seem to be a justification of original research rather than simple citations.

I'm concerned that, as this section reads now, it seems more like someone out there has an axe to grind; to whit, that they sympathise with the neoplatonists over the gnostics. While this is fair enough, this personal bias has been allowed to impact upon the article. I'm concerned also that the section about Plotinus' criticisms of his opponents within the Enneads has accepted an identity between modern uses of the appellation 'Gnostic' and ancient ones. Plotinus raises several criticisms which point more towards a general criticism of early Christianity rather than Gnosticism, the latter being a modern categorical construction applied in retrospect, and unlikely (putting it mildly) to be completely identical to uses of the appellation by figures within antiquity.

It's worth mentioning that I've had problems with this in the past, which resulted in minor edit wars; I'm not going to move on this without (for preference) an editorial consensus on this discussion page; or if this isn't forthcoming without at least leaving enough time for interested/involved parties to respond here.Visual Error (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Too good?
The section on Kabbalah reflects my opinion perfectly. Mustn't that imply that the section is a little POVvy? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Clear really?
The intro, third paragraph, first sentence, claims:
 * Whereas formerly Gnosticism was considered by some a heretical branch of Christianity, it now seems clear that traces of Gnostic systems can be discerned some centuries before the Christian Era.[11]

But this [11] is Encyclopedia Catholica, a tertiary source that doesn't give any citations whatsoever! That is an extraordinarily bad quality source, (by Jove!), wouldn't it actually be better whether Wikipedia cites Wikipedia, which at least gives secondary sources! For me it is not in any ways clear that "traces of Gnostic systems can be discerned some centuries before the Christian Era". The sentence needs another source that can prove what it claims. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 16:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Dualism and monism error
Section Dualism and monism:
 * Manicheanism likely inherits[dubious – discuss] this dualistic mythology from Zoroastrianism[citation needed], in which the eternal spirit Ahura Mazda is opposed by his antithesis, Angra Mainyu;

seems unlikely in the extreme, and a totally ignorant statement regarding the relation between Manicheism and Zoroastrianism, who mutually detested one each other strongly. First of all, in Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda created the world, but the rebellious "demon" Angra Mainyu/Ahriman is opposing him, or the constructive principle Spenta Mainyu. In Manicheism the evil Demiurge created Universe. The dualism of Zoroastrianism is like the dualism of Judaism and Christianity, the dualism of Manicheism is nothing like Zoroastrianism, Judaism nor Christianity. The statements are probably outright false: Manicheism used Zoroastrianism as a mythological basis, as it used Christianity and whatever it came over, but it had no relation to neither. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 17:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Or, since there are so many know-it-all besserwisser sources out there that have neither themselves read the Nag Hammadi Library, nor have had any personal experience of gnostic beliefs, yet know everything, I think it is appropriate to ask the rhetorical question:
 * What do any of you believe is the effect of the entire material world being evil? Does it engage to extrovert action to save the world? Does it make the believer want to save everyone? Does it in any way make the believer wish to know more about this universe?
 * those who know the answers to that, know the vast abyss between Manicheism and Zoroastrianism. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 17:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh my dear unbeknown Rursus I see, esoteric knowledge leads to salvation, but I suppose good and evil are but delusions to Nietzsche. May I also add that my once criminal ignorance in Manicheism was clearly attributable to my lack of a good book on it, I an still learning. But unlike you think Zoroastrianism had a profound influence on Manicheism. To Mani his great predecessors were Adam, Zarathustra, Buddha and Jesus. May I also add that in Manicheism the devil in fact did not create the physical universe (even though it is his evil expression). In fact as in Zoroastrianism, in Manicheism Zurvan and Ahriman are two uncreated deities and in the end good shall be victorious. It is not the devil (called by many Manicheans Ahriman) who created the universe but the third evocation the emanations from Ormazd. May I also add that Zoroastrianism is extremely dualistic, me being an atheist have to put up with my neibhors who think I am going to hell. Although some early Zoroastrians may have thought all not Zoroastrians shall not obtain salvation; salvation is based upon good thought, words and deeds. I am really not that smart, but we all have much to go. --Zaharous (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Manichaeism was influenced by Zurvanist Zoroastrianism, which is dualistic. Mazdaen Zoroastrianism, which is likely closer to what was expounded by Zoroaster, was monistic and monotheistic, but was not the only form of Zoroastrianism between 300 BCE and 300 CE.  However, Zurvanism is usually called Zurvanism since the oldest form of Zoroastrianism was likely monotheistic, and surviving Zoroastrianism is also monotheistic.  I will change the links as necessary.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense
Unfortunately there is a lot of nonsense in this article about gnosticism. See for example the following text:

"The subsequent identification of the Fall of Man as an occurrence with its ultimate foundations within divinity itself. As mysticism, the modern word for the category of the study of mystic knowledge or gnosis, teaches the fall of man, and the material world are an illusion. Salvation is a radical essentialism and not based on personal choice, action or behavior but rather destiny or fate. Due to this, salvation does not occur either entirely or partially through any human behavior or agency;"

This is really absurd. There is, to begin with, no "fall of man" in gnosticism; this is really nowhere to be found in gnostic texts. The "Fall of man" is an entirely traditional christian concept which becomes all the more clear clear if you follow its wikipedia link. Man is not "fallen" in gnosticism but enslaved by the Demiurg and his Archons. Another point is the impossibility of self-salvation. The perhaps most characteristic difference between traditional christianity and gnosticism is that the church denies the possibility self-salvation, whereas in gnosticism this is essential, and, contrary to what is here said, mend to be a liberation from fate. Fate is the instrument of the enslavement by the Demiurg; gnosticism is about the liberations from fate. A third point is that mysticism and gnosticism are really quite different traditions in western christianity and should be clearly differentiated. And this is only an example. In total this article is nog only incorrect in many aspects, it is, in my opinion, far away from Wikipedia standards. Eugnostos (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ian.thomson,for removing the text I cited above. As a newcomer I did not want to do so myself. Eugnostos (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect citation
I have removed the "citation" that Bart D. Ehrman would have stated in his book "Lost Christianities" on page 188 that gnostic sects would have preceded early christianity. I have found nothing of the sort in this book on this page. Page 188 of Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities is about the attack of the emerging church in the second century against the gnostics. Eugnostos (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I replaced the Ehrman reference with two that are a bit more neutral (The Gnostics and Their Remains, and the Jewish Encyclopedia). I also removed the verify credibility tag from the Catholic Encyclopedia citation, the part of the article referenced was "Whereas formerly Gnosticism was considered mostly a corruption of Christianity, it now seems clear that the first traces of Gnostic systems can be discerned some centuries before the Christian Era." This matches up with C.W. King's Gnostics and Their Remains, and the Jewish Encyclopedia.  It's not like the Catholic Encyclopedia is by Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger, anyway.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the references to the Catholic Encyclopedia in the paragraph on gnostic origins. I do not see the Catholic Encyclopedia as a credible source on gnosticism, and that for two reasons. It dates from 1905, and it is quite outdated as far s gnosticism is concerned. Secondly, the Catholic Church considers gnosticism as heretical and can not be expected to provide a neutral point of view on gnosticism. Moreover, and my main argument for removing the references, the Catholic Encyclopedia does not at all say that gnosticism predates Jesus. On the contrary, it states clearly that gnosticism as a belief sytem dates from the first centures after Jesus. Eugnostos (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(Sigh)
The article begins with an image of "gnosticism" which seems to have been inspired by Christian heresiology. While the term began life in this context, it quickly came to be applied to pagan and Jewish writers, as well as Manichaeism, and is now routinely mentioned in connection with Cathar, Bogomil, (Muslim) Ishraqi movements as well as various modern literary figures. To the extent they have anything in common, it would be the existence of a certain kind of salvific insight or vision: namely the recognition that the physical world is not our true home.

I started to edit in this direction--focusing on the various uses of the term, and the controversy over its appropriateness--but got reverted a few seconds later by somebody who loves their own writing far too much. I don't have time for this. Have fun in your sandbox. 118.165.204.252 (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Why I removed the Videos section
The first video, "Naked Truth" doesn't have anything to do with Gnosticism in particular, just religion. Says that the symbolism for Judaism and Christianity is the Holy Grail (um, that's just Christian...). Points out that the Grail was originally a feminine symbol, so I guess some Dan-Brown-head added it because of that (*facepalm*), or perhaps some dimestore Gnostic because it shows similarities between Jesus, Horus, and Buddha; and the Bible with Astrology. The video is just a rehash of anti-religious rhetoric and not about gnosticism.

The second video, "Secret Quest" is done by the Gnostic Movement, so the uploader (GnosticMovement) seems a bit promotional in adding the video (even if the group is non-profit). The Gnostic Movement is a new-age group, video isn't especially scholarly:

The group that made it advocate using Hindu Mantras, pretty good indication this is new-age.

The video:
 * says that the quest for Gnosis is a quest to learn "how to change from a human being to an immortal spiritual being, from a person into an angel" which is iffy. The Gnostics tended to believe that you were already an immortal being (a Pneumatic) but didn't remember, or you were just a Hylic (mud person), and that turning into an angel (see Archon) might not be the best idea.
 * says that Gnosticism has always existed (something secular scholars reject).
 * uses "Gnostic" in place of "Mystic" repeatedly, only defines Gnostic as a mystic that is trying to experiance the divine for themselves (which would mean a lot of non-Gnostics were "Gnostic").
 * accepts the crucifixion while viewing Jesus as positive (the Gnostics did one or the other, see Mandaeism and Docetism).
 * is Anti-Pauline, even though the Gnostics (See Marcion) tended to view his works esoterically.

TL;DR: I removed the videos section because they lacked good information relevant to Gnosticism, plus there were agendas on the part of both videos. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Q
It's slightly odd to cite Mark Goodacre's The Case against Q: Studies in Marcan Priority and the Synoptic Problem at note 75 in support of Q's existence. Goodacre believes, as did Austin Farrer, that Q is a piece of academic wishful thinking. (So do I, for what it's worth.) Kranf (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured article?
I think the article as it stands is on fairly solid ground - from here, it'd be good to bring it up to Featured article level. In pursuit of this goal, can anyone note any weaknesses in the article (be they in style or in content), any POV segments, or any points needing citation, and list them below. Then, with any luck, editors can unify their efforts. Cheers Visual Error 18:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Bring it up for nomination. Nixdorf 23:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Will do, once the size problems are sorted. Visual Error 00:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, I have a huge problem here. You talk, for instance, in the section of Moral and Ritual Practice, of a system typical of "Gnosticism."  But there were many branches and you need to be specific.  Sethian ritual was vastly different from Valentian.  I have a paper on the subject that I would be willing to send someone, but I don't know how to edit Wikipedia pages myself.ddhageman 09:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * See Introduction. Cheers, Sam Spade 21:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel this entry doesn't fully take into account the change in recent academic perspective. It mentions King and Williams in passing, but doesn't seem to present the effect that critical re-evaluation has had on the wider academic community, and what that wider perspective now generally intends with the word "Gnosticism" (for the people who still think the word is valid). Manichaeans, Cathers, Marcion, and many others are just not generally thought of as part of the category any longer. Although this is touched on by the entry, the outdated modes of definition are still strongly present. Many of the attributes used to define the category here come from early works by authors who now question thier own prior statements (such as Dr Pagels), or by authors who were simply not party to the recent advances (such as Jonas). I understand the article is not meant to be academic, but since we are dealing with an academic term I think it is important to present something that is up to date. PMCV 11 May 2006


 * Huge problem here too. There's a lot of scholarly descriptive text in the article that uses obscure ideological terms that never seem to get around to explaining what gnosticism is.  What is Gnosticism?  Not really defined in the article.  basilwhite 18:12, 17 Jan 2007 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph is utter nonsense. Gnosticism was never about the imperfectness of God. The rest is blather which will confuse the reader. Let's revamp it, focussing on perhaps the issue that gnostics believed that God was everyone's to know. Who's with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.136.55 (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Uhhh... Saklas/Samael/Yaldabaoth in Syrian Gnosticism, Ahriman in Manichaeism, and the Demiurge were perfect? No, they weren't... Skim through the Nag Hammadi codexes some.  The Gnostics very much believed that the material world was created by an imperfect god, and even that some souls were trapped in such hylic bodies that prevented them from finding out about the real God in this life or in many other lives.  If your sources for Gnosticism happen to be next to stuff like "astrology in your life," "discovering the goddess in the grail," or "ancient Egyptian secrets of the freemasons," that's the problem, it's not stuff dealing with the historical Gnostics with sources from that time period, it's recent stuff that has been made up to make people feel good about themselves while making the author's wallet feel heavier.  Ian.thomson (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

- thanks Mr Thompson. I need to think about this. RO. PS- i have read these some (going to the interlinear translations where possible), and am trying to avoid those trashy videos :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.136.55 (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Nestorianism
Nestorianism has nothing to do with Gnosticism. Nestorianism, or better the Church of the East, is either a different varient of Christianity, or in the opinion of some, a very different heresy from Gnosticism. This referent should be removed.


 * Heresy means 'Choice'. Which method you use to skin a cat depends on your heresy. All churches of Christianity tend to promote part of the whole, as the founder of such a sect decided was appropriate. Many people heard Jesus, yet taught differently. All branches of christianity have 'similarities' and are related. What you really mean to say, is that each school of thought deserves its place within the encyclopaedia to avoid confusion of one sect being mistaken as having same ethos when such is not the case.86.4.59.203 00:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Oracle.


 * The point is that all heresies are not the same. Nestorianism is completely different from Gnosticism.  If you want to talk about heresies in general, then a new page should be created entitled "Heresies" in which one can compare and contrast Gnosticism, Nestorianism, and any other beliefs one desires to examine.


 * Historical research shows pretty clearly that Gnosticism was a late development among those who called themselves Christians. Those who believe otherwise are in the minority, regardless of how many books they've sold.  Historical research reveals that the reason the early church fought Gnosticism is because the original witnesses to Jesus of Nazareth remembered what he taught and they knew that the teachings of the Gnostics did not line up with what Jesus actually taught.Spiritquest (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)