gurugeorge

That's not quite right - they're more like non-dual thinkers who are trying to force Gnosticism into the mold of non-dualism (e.g. like Advaita, Zen, etc.).

The fit isn't too bad actually, for a fair amount of the writings; but I think strictly speaking it's a better fit for GThomas, which really does seem like a kind of non-dual mysticism.

But I suspect that there is something a bit tricky about the term "Gnosticism" itself - not that there was no such thing altogether, but that it's a catch-all term for certain forms of heresy.

Clearly, the main heresy for orthodoxy was the idea that you need not look to a church heirarchy for authority, but can find it in yourself, find a direct connection to God in yourself. That was the main beef for orthodoxy, everything else is subservient to that political principle.

Indeed, in a way, Protestantism itself was a resurgent (and successful) form of Gnosticism in this sense, except it fell into the trap of taking a literal reading of the texts as "authorities" (rather than playing with them, as the Gnostics evidently did). Like someone used to subservience, the Protestant thinkers couldn't quite free themselves of the need for some authority, so they glommed onto a literal reading of the texts.

Jeffrey Gibson

Can anyone here name a gnostic who didn't believe that the Jesus of the canonical Gospels appeared in Galilee and Judea in the first century (even if only as a phantom), that he didn't interact with fully flesh and blood disciples, and that "he" was not an "agent and actor" in human history?

Jeffrey

aa5874

1. Can anyone here name a gnostic who didn't believe in the God of the canonical Gospels and that God didn't interact with fully flesh and blood disciples, and that "God" was not an "agent and actor" in human history?

2. Can anyone here name a gnostic who didn't believe in the Holy Spirit of the canonical Gospels, that the Holy Spirit didn't interact with fully flesh and blood disciples, and that "the Holy Spirit" was not an "agent and actor" in human history?

3. Can anyone here name a gnostic who didn't believe that Satan the Devil of the canonical Gospels appeared in Galilee and Judea in the first century, that Satan the Devil didn't interact with fully flesh and blood disciples, and that Satan the Devil was not an "agent and actor" in human history?

Jeffrey Gibson

I note with interest that even assuming that you are capable of understanding the point I was making -- that mythicists' views of Jesus run counter to what Gnostics believed about him (i.e. that he was "historical") and therefore, if rejected, have to be so on some basis other than that they are Gnostic -- you have missed it entirely.

Moreover, the issue is whether Gnostics believed that Jesus appeared on earth, not whether what they believed in this regard is true.

I'd be grateful if you'd stop riding your hobby horse and actually recognize the very real distinction.

Jeffrey

aa5874

You made no point. You asked a question that is of no real value to the OP.

Anyone familiar with Jewish, Greek and Roman Mythology would have realized that people of antiquity did accept Myth characters as figures of history.

Now, name a Gnostic of the 1st century, if you can.

Jeffrey Gibson

I made a very salient point. It is not my fault that you didn't understand it or are too dense to get it.

Did the Gnostics believe in an historical Jesus? Yes. Do mythicists believe in an historical Jesus? No. So given this, it is wrong to think, as Clive seems to do, that any one would reject the claims of mythicists for being gnostic since plainly they are not at least vis a vis the issue of the existence of an historical Jesus . Anyone who knows anything about gnosticism and its beliefs about Jesus would never even ask the (poorly worded) question "Are the reactions to mythicists because they are seen as gnostic heretics?".

Jeffrey

aa5874

Rhetorical questions are not points.

It most fascinating that up to now that you do not understand what "historical Jesus" means.

May I remind you that in the HJ/MJ argument that "historical" refers to a human being.

Again, please name a Gnostic of the 1st century and name a Gnostic that admitted Jesus was completely human.

Jeffrey Gibson

Can you really be this clueless and dense?

Jeffrey

Sheshbazzar

God. Now we will have to wait till Hell freezes over.

aa5874

Again, you are not making any points. You are merely asking rhetorical questions for which you yourself have no answer.