Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 06-11-2007, 04:45 AM

I look forward to reading comments from readers.

andrewcriddle · 06-11-2007, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I look forward to reading comments from readers.

Because they disagreed so much among themselves.

(If you mean why was say Valentinus wrong or Marcion wrong or Carpocrates wrong then you should clarify your question.)

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic · 06-11-2007, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Because they disagreed so much among themselves.

But no one knows how many disagreements there might have been among Christians in the first century. Who knows how many competing documents the victors (orthodox Christians) destroyed? As Elaine Pagels said, "The victors rewrote history, 'their way.'"

xunzian · 06-11-2007, 06:15 AM

Some Christians bashed Gnostics in the thread Against Gnosticism on a philosophy website.

Here is the intro post, the OP goes on to cite Biblican passages ad nauseum to demonstrate his position,

Quote:

This study of Gnosticism was sparked inside my “Mystery in the Bible” thread http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb...86850e950780c6 wherein “speakeroftruth” defends Gnosticism. I told him/her I’d look into it… Some warm-up reading: Isaiah 6:9-10, Ezekiel 12:2, Luke 10:21, 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16… Isaiah 35:4-5.

This (longish) study is split up into different posts in this thread:
Original (current) post – intro., excerpts from extra-biblical sources.
Second post – excerpts from introductions of relevant books of Bible.
Third post – relevant passages from the Bible, and excerpts from study notes.

The New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, Encyclopedic Edition, Volume 1, published by Lexicon Publications, Inc., in 1995, defines Gnosticism on page 408 as “a trend of religious thought with Far Eastern origins which flourished in the Hellenistic Near East. There were numerous Gnostic sects, both pagan and Christian. The Christian Gnostics denied the literal meaning of Scriptures and saw only an esoteric meaning [defined as ‘(of religious, mystical or philosophical teaching or practice) with a meaning that is understood only by those who have received the necessary instruction or training,’ (ibid, p. 322)] based on gnosis [defined as ‘a divinely inspired knowledge,’ (ibid, p. 408)], e.g. they did not believe that a real Jesus was really crucified.”

In the Universal Subject Guide to the Bible, found near the back of The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, published by Thomas Nelson in 1990, Gnosticism is defined as an “early heresy based on knowledge instead of faith.” On that note, please see my faith thread, located here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb...c.php?t=153362. The faith thread discusses whether we are saved by faith or works (also touching on the issue of blind faith), and this present Gnosticism thread could be thought of as an off-shoot from the faith thread, branching into a discussion of whether we are saved by faith or knowledge (of the “gnosis” variety). According to the aforementioned subject guide, Gnosticism is “warned against (Col 2:8, 18), arrogant (1 Cor 8:1), false (1 Tim 6:20) and surpassed by Christ (Eph 3:19).”

From the “Answering Mysticism” section, page 650 of “The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell:
Quote:
Robert S. Ellwood, Jr. warns:

“We must receive with considerable caution the common ideas that if religion became more mystical and less dogmatic it would be better, and that mysticism is the true spiritual core of all religion. While a valid case can be argued for some of the assumptions underlying these propositions, they are highly ambiguous unless we take setting into account. Depending upon setting, what people regard as mystical experience can as well release the demons of war and hate in the name of a spiritual cause. For the self-validating nature of mysticism is a two-edged sword: it might enable the wondrous experience of transcendence, yet validate the separation of its associations from the control of reason. Therein comes the dark side of mysticism. Those who release self-validating experiences from the supervision of reason and social control neglect these controls to the peril of all. The danger may, strictly speaking, lie not in the flash of ecstasy but in the feelings and symbols associated with it. In practice, however, often little separation of the two occurs. The self-validating experience easily becomes the false romanticism of exalting feelings as cognitive and guides to action over reason or tradition. One then is likely to evoke the mood of the Nazi madness or of solipsist fanaticism of Charles Manson.” (Ellwood, Mysticism and Religion, 186)
I insert that quote because the exclusive nature of Gnosticism and its “secret knowledge” seems to warrant it here.

The general consensus is that the NT is littered with warnings against Gnostic-style thinking and, given later developments of the Church, while such thinking is possible, it is neither sound nor valid if based on the NT.

Clouseau · 06-11-2007, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Because they disagreed so much among themselves.

But no one knows how many disagreements there might have been among Christians in the first century. Who knows how many competing documents the victors (orthodox Christians) destroyed? As Elaine Pagels said, "The victors rewrote history, 'their way.'"

The victors were not Christians. They were the 'Cathodox', the emperor's lackeys. They selected certain heresies that suited the imperial purposes (temple worship, priests and sacrifices, virgin cult, that were, with a very long stretch of the imagination, adaptable from Christianity) and denounced, with much fanfare, those that they did not need.

andrewcriddle · 06-11-2007, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

But no one knows how many disagreements there might have been among Christians in the first century. Who knows how many competing documents the victors (orthodox Christians) destroyed? As Elaine Pagels said, "The victors rewrote history, 'their way.'"

This seems somewhat speculative.

(It is not clear how far we can usefully discuss what hypothetical early Christian movements of which no record whatever has survived might have believed.)

Andrew Criddle

Knupfer · 06-11-2007, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I look forward to reading comments from readers.

Because they disagreed with the bible. And since the bible was written with the same Spirit that God sent to believers, then those who receive God's Spirit will never disagree with the bible. Therefore the Gnostics didn't believe in the only true God or they would have agreed with the bible.

WishboneDawn · 06-11-2007, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knupfer

Because they disagreed with the bible. And since the bible was written with the same Spirit that God sent to believers, then those who receive God's Spirit will never disagree with the bible. Therefore the Gnostics didn't believe in the only true God or they would have agreed with the bible.

It was my understanding that there was no bible when the gnostics were most active.

mountainman · 06-11-2007, 04:35 PM

Eusebius writes of calumny and more calumny.
Constantine was a mocker not a flatterer.
All they needed were intellectual property
priority dates on the "prenicene story".

See further, the TF, and my response to
your earlier question concerning the gnostics.

Knupfer · 06-11-2007, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WishboneDawn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knupfer

Because they disagreed with the bible. And since the bible was written with the same Spirit that God sent to believers, then those who receive God's Spirit will never disagree with the bible. Therefore the Gnostics didn't believe in the only true God or they would have agreed with the bible.

It was my understanding that there was no bible when the gnostics were most active.

Then your understanding is wrong. Paul's letters existed along with the OT and the gospels before the end of the 1st century. Actually the bible was written closer to the times of the events than any other events in history.

06-11-2007, 04:45 AM	#1
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to Christians: Why were the Gnostics wrong? I look forward to reading comments from readers.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-11-2007, 04:35 PM	#9
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Eusebius writes of calumny and more calumny. Constantine was a mocker not a flatterer. All they needed were intellectual property priority dates on the "prenicene story". See further, the TF, and my response to your earlier question concerning the gnostics.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.