mike_decock

I recently read The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels which describes how much of the orthodox doctrines were chosen in reaction to Gnosticism. It was the politics of establishing the structure of the early church which denounced Gnosticism as heresy as it undermined the authority of human leadership. That's a very different picture than you are painting here.

-Mike...

cyclone

I am not familiar with Pagels' book, but I suspect that she is not distinguishing between the grass-roots acceptance of a doctrine and the official codification of said doctrine. For example, simply because Jesus' full divinity was pronounced as orthodox in 325 AD, it doesn't follow that nobody believed it before that. The church felt it was necessary to make a formal pronouncement at Nicene precisely because Arianism was starting to become influential, and it was seen as important to establish an unequivocal position on Jesus' divine nature.

And this is not an argument from silence since there are numerous examples (from ancient hymns and even non-Christian sources) which demonstrate an early belief in Jesus' divinity. One of the best works which addresses this very topic is "The Historical Jesus" by Gary Habermas.

Mageth

I bought that book, along with a copy of the Gnostic Gospels, just the other day. I guess I'll have to read them now. (BTW, it was already my understanding that Gnosticism appears to have been an early 1st Century development that was "eradicated" by the opposition).

Mageth

Originally posted by cyclone
I suppose the important issue is whether the Bible is a reliable source of authority when it teaches about the person of Jesus Christ. Of course, I know that you don't take this perspective when reading the Bible, and this is certainly a discussion for another time.

I reckon so.

Do you mean that concepts cannot be inferred from implicit statements or actions? I dare say that language would be incredibly difficult if we could only make conclusions based on this strict guideline. Moreover, we are not referring to one implicit statement by Jesus, but literally dozens of such statements and allusions which provide cumulative evidence that he believed himself to be God incarnate.

Sure they can, but since they're all implicit, and never explicit, one can reach other conclusions from the statements and actions. Jesus could have avoided the ambiguity by just saying "HEY, I am GOD already! Get it?"

I'm familiar with Sufism. <snip>

Yet some sects of Islam consider the other sects "heretical". That's the point; in both Xianity and Islam, you have those who declare others with differing beliefs of one sort or other to not be "True Scotsmen."

I think it's important to point out that Gnosticism became an influence in Christianity after important doctrines like the incarnation were already accepted and believed by followers of Jesus.

That's definitely arguable.

There is strong historical evidence to show that early believers in Jesus considered him to be God in the flesh, and this was not a doctrine that developed much later,

I'm not arguing that it was (developed much later), but that there is historical evidence that there were early believers (Gnostics) that did not consider him to be "God in the Flesh" in the "orthodox" way. And they lost out to those that did, and that's why the belief you now hold is the orthodox, "historical" belief supported by most of the Church.

Soul Invictus

Mike_decock, you beat me to the punch. I was just about to mention this book. I am familiar with Jesus' divinity being the newer of the two concepts as well, so if your contention is the other way around, I'd be interested in your references.

mike_decock

That's why I said "orthodox doctrines were chosen rather than "created" or "defined". Both Gnostic and Orthodox traditions claim "grass-roots" acceptance and apostolic authority.

I'm not arguing against an early belief in Jesus' divinity. I simply noted that your assertion that it [gnosticism] developed later in response to an already existing understanding of what it means to be "Christian" may not be true. I'm more inclined to believe they developed in parallel based on the evidence presented by Pagels.

-Mike...

mike_decock

I thought it was a quick read and a convincing picture of early Christianity. It didn't delve too deeply into the Gnostic gospels themselves (I would be interested more in any recommendations that do), but focused more on the conflicts between gnosticism and orthodoxy and the political motivation between the establishment of orthodox doctrine.

I wasn't trying to imply that Jesus' divinity was the newer of the two concepts. My impression is that they were parallel developments. I haven't read any other scholarly works I could refer you to, just a number of websites arguing (somewhat unconvincingly, IMO) from both sides.

-Mike...

Soul Invictus

Let's hear 'em.

cyclone

Originally posted by mike_decock



And just to clarify, what is being implied here is that since Gnosticism developed alongside what we now call "orthodoxy", it follows that it's an equally legitimate expression of Christian faith.

Or perhaps the argument is stronger, that Gnostic Christianity is a more legitimate expression of Christian faith. In "The Historical Jesus," Habermas describes Walter Baur's position like this: "...second century Christendom witnessed a wide variety of theological viewpoints. Gnosticism existed in this milieu as an alternative to what was later recognized as the orthodox position...out of this multiplicity, orthodoxy still emerged, but not necessarily because it was the original position of Jesus and his disciples." (p.102)

So are we saying that Gnosticism is preferred to orthodoxy OR that it's simply a legitimate alternative from orthodoxy? Also, what would follow if there was good reason to believe that, as I asserted earlier, Gnosticism developed much later than orthodoxy and was very much a reaction to orthodox teaching? Could this be an indication that perhaps the orthodox tradition is more authoritative, on account of its historical precedence?

I'm asking these questions precisely because I would like to make a case against Gnosticism and the Gnostic writings, but I want to clarify in advance the significance of such a project.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

Mageth

My point is that "Incarnation" as you believe it is considered the orthodox position only because its adherents won out in the early Cult Wars. Whatever "authority" it has stems from the fact that it was victorious and quashed the early "heresies". Because it was victorious, the Church declares it the historically "authoritative" position. If Gnosticism had prevailed, you no doubt would be now arguing it as the historically "authoritative" position, using the Bible (which would probably be quite different, containing the Gnostic gospels etc.) to back your position, and denouncing "Incarnation" as an early heresy, the believers of which are not True Christians.

I don't see the "orthodox" position as "more authoritative" for any historical reason other than that one.