rigorist

It is just that your use of the term "gnostic" is confusing. In Christian theology and church history, "gnostic" is a term of art referring to a specific set of beliefs, as the other posters in this thread have indicated.

Chili

The difference between a Gnostic and a gnostic is that the gnostic knows and the Gnostic, who belongs to a religion or -ism, does not know or he would not have faith. Revelation clearly states that there are no temples in the New Jerusalem because there is no faith in heaven, only knowledge without faith. The evidence that they were in heaven is made by their rather eclectic statement that those in heaven are entertained by the suffering souls in hell (do you really think that they needed that as entertainment?).

What they are telling you here is that heaven is a place on earth, and so is hell, where [self proclaimed] Christians go to church, as did the various sects of Gnostics, neither of whom were therefore Gnostic, or Christian, because the word Christian and gnostic are synonymous for being 'in the know' and therefore in heaven or 'beyond religion.' Notice here that Jesus did not become Christ until after resurrection and did not ascend until Thomas was without doubt and Peter was without faith (defrocked) with the exclamation by Thomas "My Lord andmy God to show that God and Lord God are one and the same . . . henceforth and therefore omniscient.

To be gnostic is not to have special knowledge 'of God' but it is to 'be God.'

Chili

Read my next post and it will make sense. Since Gnosticism as an -ism is a religion it uses the capital G, and to juxtapose my gnostic with the Gnostics of the -ism I use a small g for the gnostic in the true sense of the word gnostic.

The gnostic is a Freeman who does not have to think while the freeman who thinks he is free must think to arrive at that conclusion . . . and is therefore not free.