mountainman

As far as I understand the gnostic authors were supposed to have coexisted in the Roman Empire alongside their orthodox canonical counterparts. In the Nag Hammadi codices there exists a reference to a generation which fled Christianity. Was this generation the gnostic generation? If so when did this generation of gnostics flee from Christianity?

Despite the reference supplied by Toto below I cannot envisage the gnostics (heretics) fleeing Christianity until after Nicaea when Constantine prohibited all other traditions religious services. I don't discount the possibility that one small underground sect may have splintered itself into orthodox and heretics, and at some point the orthodox chased the heretics out of all the towns and cities.

But the question is what evidence exists to suggest that the gnostic generation (heretics) fled from Christianity prior to Nicaea?

stephan huller

Why is the word 'flee' here? Why not put the word 'busk' or 'jig' while your at it.

mountainman

FFS read NHC 11.1

Toto

I think this is just Christian speak. Christians are always talking about how hard it is to stick to the Christian path. They talk about how the disciples fled after Jesus was arrested, or some earlier followers fled before they heard about the resurrection - and now this generation is fleeing because they can't see that Christ is alive in them.

You can find similar complaints today about how the younger generation is losing faith.

I don't see that this has anything to do with a gnostic generation fleeing the orthodox church after Nicaea.

Let this be the last thread on this passage, and the last time that you cite it without knowing the first thing about what it means.

Chili

Just go by language and let it speak to see the contradiction:

gnostic = know, and the-ism wants to know, but can't lift the stone they are standing on. = heresy.

Christian = mind of Christ, he knows intuitly inside the reign of God.

sin = product of the law; no law = no sin. Sin becomes the antagonist in us.

Christian path = saved as sinner and die nontheless as 'saved-sinner.'

Solution = crucify the sinner and not the man (thank you Jesus is white-wash only).

Alternate solution: walk away from it and be pissed off at Rome to whom only the secret is known to crucify the sinner in the mystery of faith.

And the argument is never done.

Bottom line: Christian-ity will always be an abomination even if with 20.000 brew-pot mixtures strong.

DrZoidberg

Gnosticism was alive and kicking for a very long time. As a major movement is was finally destroyed in the 14'th century:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism

But considering it's wide spread and long life I'm assuming that gnosticism never really went away.

sotto voce

If you don't know, why have you made a thread heading that states that you do know, and implies that everyone else should know it?

And does this thread and its misleading title have a far greater life-span than it otherwise might?

Are we here only to preach the Lord Jesus, even back-handedly?

:constern01:

Sheshbazzar

Friends, Romans, and countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury JeeZeus, not to praise him.

Chili

Clearly a heresy to be a friend of God, as in 'My Brother is God' but not me.

Total idiots no matter how good and how great they think they are.

Must have noticed by now that 'the charismatics' are always trouble makers for themselves.

mountainman

This is waffle and I disagree completely with it. See below.


You are simply citing the opinion of the author of the article which was presented in the OP and cited by yourself. However you do not appear to have understood where the author was coming from. Consider the following extract ....

Firstly the author himself states the text could have been dated AFTER Nicaea.

Secondly the author admits he is not interested in the questions related to historical context, but rather he is interested in the wishy-washy non historical questions of "social processes" and "community ideology". The author appears to accept as true the unsubstantiated legends of the canonical texts and then seeks in the canonical texts anything to justify his "social processes" related to FLEEING. This is a cop-out. He is not interested in history in this article by his own admissions.

OTOH I am interested in establishing the possible historical context of this specific text from the NHC.


The author you cited allows an upper bound of 340 CE.

The author of the article The "Epistle to Rheginus": Valentinianism in the Fourth Century, M. J. Edwards states the following ....


There are a number of other considerations as well. For example a substantial percentage (perhaps well in excess of 50%) of all known non canonical and/or gnostic texts are already conjectured to have been authored in the 4th century and after Nicaea.


Consequently there is nothing to suggest that the possibility that the greek original of this text was not authored by the generation which witnessed the all important Nicaean decision for the entire Roman Empire to adopt the very plain and simple Christian religion.

If you read some of the sections of the text that Philip L. Tite comments upon in the first article, you will see that these may just as validly be interpreted to be describing the reaction of a group (or generation) of people who were after Nicaea prevented from following their own religious and/or religio-philosophical beliefs. I will post some of these later.



You appear to have changed your opinion. In the OP you state that you think I don't quite understand the text. Then immediately following you state that I don't know the first thing about what it means. Your second OPINION of what I know and don't know appears to be elevated to the purple.

I object to this.

You have no idea at all what I know. You have no idea at all how many of these NHC texts I have studied in detail, or the extent of my background reading on the NHC and/or the other non canonical texts.

Some of my notes include the following:

Nag Hammadi Index: Index of the 13 ancient books, containing 52 texts.


Comprehensive tabulation of Gnostic Gospels and Acts: A tabulation of over one hundred of the texts of the New Testament apocrypha, with links to the English translations, mainstream chronology, WIKI articles, GOOGLE indices, quotations, summaries, comments, and other important data. The table is categorised into the following sections (with totals): The Gnostic Gospels (23), The Gnostic Acts (29), The Gnostic Wisdom Sayings (10), Letters and Correspondence (8), Gnostic Apocalypses/Revelations , (12) and Gnostic Treatises (25).


Having noted my strenuous objection to your ill-informed comment above I return to the OP.

The argument is that it is distinctly possible that this text was authored (in its original Greek form) between the years of 325 CE (When the shit hit the fan for every other religious and/or academic group in the Roman Empire) and the mid 4th century.

My argument therefore is to examine the contents of this (and/or other NHC texts) to determine whether there exists any indications that this NHC text was originally authored AFTER Nicaea.

The fact that the text states that this generation was FLEEING the Orthodox Christian Good News I see as supportive to my argument.