Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mcnc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!bch From: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Gnostic Christianity Message-ID: <2394@mcnc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 29-Nov-84 13:05:34 EST Article-I.D.: mcnc.2394 Posted: Thu Nov 29 13:05:34 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 30-Nov-84 19:21:02 EST References: <329@stcvax.UUCP>Reply-To: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) Distribution: net.religion Organization: North Carolina Educational Computing Service Lines: 121 Summary: In article marie@harvard.ARPA (Marie Desjardins) writes: >> Lately a friend of mine at work (who is a Gnostic Christian) has been >> talking to me about his religion and I have been truely fascinated. > >Could somebody explain what the Gnostic church is? (The only thing that >comes to mind is 'agnostic' -- are these Christians who aren't really >sure of their beliefs?) > It's hard to make generalizations about Gnosticism, there are many different flavors. Gnosticism is alive and well, thank you, though many who practice it do not call it by that name. Mormons and Christian Scientists (at the risk of offending some) have a strong intellectual base in the Gnostic faith though they don't claim it and, in fact, were founded well before the discovery of the major Gnostic texts. What follows is an elucidation of my own particular understanding of Gnostic Christianity. I speak for no one but myself, so it may differ from others. As the Gnosticism proceeds from the point of inner knowledge ("gnosis" -- agnostic means 'not knowing') there is a tendency to develop one's own theology along common points of faith. Fundamental to the Gnostic faith is the assertion of the spiritual nature of Christ and of man. G-d made man "in His image," thus man in the realization of his true spiritual nature transcends the flesh which is (literally) a temporal incarnation. Jesus came/was sent to show us the path to G-d, not through a set of rules and regulations for sal- vation, but through demonstration -- through acts, through works and ultimately through spiritual resurrection. The nature of the Resurrection was a point of strong division between the Apostolic and Gnostic Christians. The Apostolics believed (as many do) that the resurrection was a literal resurrection of the flesh. Gnostics believe that the resurrection was of the spirit. This duality is best exemplified in (I believe) "The Gospel of James," a Gnostic text wherein Jesus appears to James *during the crucifixion* to declare that what is being done "is not being done to me." There is contained the image of the crucified Jesus and above -- the spiritual Christ laughing. The early Roman Bishops considered this notion heretical, as many would today. Gnostics believe, also, that if all men and women are of divine nature, then all men and women are equal. Historically, there is no authority structure in the Gnostic faith. The various authority roles are selected by lot or democratic election (as with Christian Scientists today.) Many Gnostics believe Mary Magdelene to be the first witness to the resurrection and thus the inheritor of the apostolic vacancy ultimately given to Matthias. (The political battle for control of the early Christian Church between the Apostolics and the Gnostic sects is covered extensively in Elaine Paget's "The Gnostic Gospels" a good source work for modern Gnosticism.) It is a fairly strong point of common belief among Gnostics that the christian faith was led away from its true nature by the early christian fathers. In line with this is the Gnostic notion of the Trinity not as the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost/Spirit, but as the Father, the Mother and the Son -- the divine reflection of the earthly family. The Father, in this scenario, is the unnameable perfection. "He has no name for there was none to give Him one." He exists, has always existed and will always exist as (my own belief) the organizing principle of the universe. The Mother, 'the great Silence,' the Sophia ("Wisdom") is the creative principle -- the Truth that is apparent. The Child is us. Mankind -- the spiritual offspring of the G-dhead. There is another character in this theological playlet, the Demiurge ("Creator.") The Demiurge is a *strong* point of division between traditional Gnostic theology and more mainstream faith. Essentially, before all things (as we know them) began, the Creative Impulse for need of something to create spawned a being/idea which (for want of a better term) I'll call an Angel. While of divine origin this Angel was not omniscient or omnipresent and was unaware of it's nature and origin (as are we.) In a better job of it, all that we know was brought to being *through* the Demiurge by the Male and Female principles, again with its being unaware. The Demiurge, being unaware, thought it was alone -- in charge of the Universe. As such, it endeavored to limit mankind in its realization of spirituality (Genesis) and to make all manner of rules to insure its place in control of ever-presumptive humanity. (To refer to the standard Gnostic statement: "The Lord thy G-d is a jealous G-d." Jealous of whom? Who else is/was there? Only humanity.) Ultimately, the Demiurge became aware of it's true nature and was mortified. This, to Gnostics, marks the transition between the Old Testament and New Testament G-d. Did the Demiurge become the Christ? Was it thrown down to become Satan? Are both of these aspects of the same? There are strong dividing points, even among Gnostics on these issues. For us, how to we apprehend the Deity and our own nature? Gnostics believe that it begins with self-knowlege and understanding. There is a lovely Coptic text which I don't have at hand which asks not how is it possible to apprehend G-d, but how is it possible to *not* apprehend G-d. G-d is evident in all things, most certainly in ourselves if we allow that knowledge. It is the greatest sin to be blind to oneself and one's own nature. How much of the above do *I* believe? That is unclear to me. I find I put great faith in the Truth of spirituality and the temporal nature of that which we call reality. I regard the whole business of the Demiurge to be an allegorical tale of the necessary transition from rule-laden existence to the enlightenment and freedom inherent in self-knowledge. I certainly believe in Christ as "The Way," but by example rather than the relative complexities of Pauline theology. One takes on the mantle of Christ by emulating and at the same time struggling to apprehend G-d in oneself. That is the way to atone for one's transgressions, no other person or being can do it for you. I have no idea how more mainstream Christians regard Gnostics, though I expect I'll find out :-) Before folks flame at me, or write me lovely letters about my eternal soul and its disposition, let me say that I've seriously considered the more mainstream path and cannot find it within myself to accept it. The notions are much to alien to me to become part of my world view. Likewise this is not an effort to convince anyone, but only an exposition of my own faith. I'm not foolish enough to believe I can convince anyone of anything in this forum, and wouldn't try it even if I could. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch