Talk:Gnosticism

From Theopedia

Modern or Ancient?

Is this article supposed to be about modern or ancient Gnosticism? Its entirely unclear and goes back and forth. For example "knowledge of transcendence arrived at by way of internal, intuitive means" is modern, the ancient gnostics believed that revelation was required to achieve gnosis. "Gnostics believed that human beings were "sparks" or "droplets" of the very same spiritual substance (or essence) that God is" again modern. Ancient Gnostics weren't Armenian and believed in election (being a bit tongue in cheek); that is most human beings were thoroughly material and thus had nothing that could be "saved". Modern Gnostics come from Armenian cultures and tend to believe in a universal salvation. "This effects many of their beliefs and especially the way they perceive(d) the world and God's interactions with it". This is a bit non specific regarding what's meant by God, but if by God we mean "the Theos" then this notion of interaction is thoroughly modern. The theos doesn't interact with the world at all, that's one of the key driving assumptions that wouldn't even have been controversial in the ancient world. Jbolden1517 15:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's all sourced as being in Olson; but all the question marks you're raising suggest that the material pertains to modern rather than ancient Gnosticism, (which, as you rightly observe, are historically and philosophically unrelated). Either Olson was mis-read, or he's messed up, or... Oh, and (with my tongue in my cheek as well) Gnostics weren't Armenian, most of them were sort of Near Eastern.  ;) Wooster (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if Arius ever demanded reparations from the Turks.  :) Chrismon 16:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Theosophy and Olson

"At this point both Protestant and Catholic sermons tended to attach theosophy as a form of gnosticism." The problem is that this is still going on. The article needs a small section explaining the difference between Theosophy and Gnosticism because theosophic beliefs are very common and are often confused with gnosticism. A Christian reader encountering Theosophy may very well be told (or think) he is dealing with Gnosticism and not Theosophy. I think the deletion is a mistake.

As for Olson, I haven't read his piece. However virtually everything that is quoted from him is either incorrect or oversimplified. My intent is to pull all of it. Let's just pick a section essentially at random (say the Jesus section):

• Gnostics considered themselves Christians Most Gnostics didn't consider themselves Christian, the vast majority of gnostics had nothing to do with Christianity. Now even if we forgive that oversight we have the problem of trying to figure out if he is referring to Gnostics in other organizations incorporating Christian elements (like the Sethians) or if he means Christians incorporating Gnostic elements (like Valentinus). Or what about Jewish Gnostics that are influenced by Christian ideas (like the children of Koreth). Some of what he says applies to some of these groups and some doesn't.
• they rejected the idea of God becoming incarnate (God becoming a man), dying and rising bodily Some gnostics had no problem with the incarnation via. an adoptionist framework. Now interesting enough 2 lines later he explicitly mentions the adoptionists, "Most Gnostics believe that whoever entered Jesus at his baptism left him before he died on the cross." The rest of this line applies only to the docetists. Some gnostics didn't believe in the crucifixion at all. Some believed that he did die and rise but not bodily (he did so in the world of ideals. Further they believed this was Paul's position). I could go on, again a major oversimplification.

I think all the Olson stuff needs to go. Jbolden1517 16:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul

Jeff, can you explain these sentences? It looks like there's a couple of words out of place, which makes it a little tricky to follow, but if it's saying what I think it's saying, I think a better example would be God's eternal power and divine majesty from Romans 1; and I'm not sure what cosmology has to do with it. Wooster (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

For example Paul argues that the moral law is knowable and that doctrine latter expanded into natural law, however he believed that knowledge of cosmology comes from scripture. For the neo platoist cosmology was almost mathematical, but morality required revelation.

I altered the quote a bit hope that helps on the understanding. I'm not sure if you are taking issue with say Romans (2:14) as arguing for natural law or the reference was obscure. As for cosmology I'm contrasting cosmology vs. morality. For the neo platonist cosmology could be derived from reason but morality required revelation; while for Paul morality could be derived from nature but cosmology required revelation. Jbolden1517 22:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking that there may be more subtle ways to deal with Romans 2 than the quotation allowed for, but that's not really the important point. Even operating on the reading given, which is certainly justifiable, it's not really obviously about God in the way that the Romans 1 allusion would be. Although I guess it would make the Paul -v- Plato thing harder to work. What I meant about cosmology is that I don't get where Paul says (or even operates on the principle) that cosmology must be derived from Scripture. I'm certainly willing to be enlightened.  : ) Wooster (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

2Cor 12: 1I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. 3And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. Though I must admit the passage I was actually thinking of at the time I wrote this is from Rev 21.

Regardless the fact that I could find very few references makes me think another example may be better. I have to make the Theosophy section even more confusing and no reason to get hung on this point. Jbolden1517 14:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd suggest using a more obvious example (I can't think of one off-hand, sorry for not being much creative use). I'm also somewhat hamstrung by not knowing much, if anything, about neo-Platonism. Be careful with unqualified use of words like cosmology; I assume you're meaning metaphysical cosmology? Most people, I suspect, would think of physical cosmology first, regardless of context. That was what had me confused, for sure. Wooster (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)