Talk:Gnosticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Religion. This project provides a central approach to Religion-related subjects on wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale. See comments
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

WikiProject Echo has identified Gnosticism as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Esperanto language Wikipedia.

Contents 1 Archives 2 Featured article? 3 Image 4 Moved content 5 Quoting of sources 6 Gnostic origin of the word "matrix" 7 History of Gnosticism 8 Check this 9 The Monad 10 Mediated or Mitigated 11 please clarify 12 refutation and thanks 13 Gnosticism in modern times 14 Fathers of Christian Gnosticism and Early Gnosticism: Stubs need work 15 Is the list of blogs appropriate? 16 External links 17 Intro too long 18 Article too long 19 Relation to Hermeticism? 20 Gnosticism 21 Nestorianism 22 "Male" biblical God vs "hermaphroditic" gnostic 23 Orphism & Gnosticism 24 Plagiarism 25 Old Testament God + Satan 26 His Dark Materials 27 gnosis 28 masonic 29 Excellent Article 30 Expert needed? 31 A List of Gnostic Writings 32 Revert recent edits by Wmgreene 33 Introduction: Where and when? 34 Introduction misconceptions.

[edit] Archives

• /Archive 1

[edit] Featured article?

I think the article as it stands is on fairly solid ground - from here, it'd be good to bring it up to Featured article level. In pursuit of this goal, can anyone note any weaknesses in the article (be they in style or in content), any POV segments, or any points needing citation, and list them below. Then, with any luck, editors can unify their efforts. Cheers Visual Error 18:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Bring it up for nomination. Nixdorf 23:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Will do, once the size problems are sorted. Visual Error 00:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I have a huge problem here. You talk, for instance, in the section of Moral and Ritual Practice, of a system typical of "Gnosticism." But there were many branches and you need to be specific. Sethian ritual was vastly different from Valentian. I have a paper on the subject that I would be willing to send someone, but I don't know how to edit Wikipedia pages myself.ddhageman 09:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Introduction. Cheers, Sam Spade 21:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel this entry doesn't fully take into account the change in recent academic perspective. It mentions King and Williams in passing, but doesn't seem to present the effect that critical re-evaluation has had on the wider academic community, and what that wider perspective now generally intends with the word "Gnosticism" (for the people who still think the word is valid). Manichaeans, Cathers, Marcion, and many others are just not generally thought of as part of the category any longer. Although this is touched on by the entry, the outdated modes of definition are still strongly present. Many of the attributes used to define the category here come from early works by authors who now question thier own prior statements (such as Dr Pagels), or by authors who were simply not party to the recent advances (such as Jonas). I understand the article is not meant to be academic, but since we are dealing with an academic term I think it is important to present something that is up to date. PMCV 11 May 2006

Huge problem here too. There's a lot of scholarly descriptive text in the article that uses obscure ideological terms that never seem to get around to explaining what gnosticism is. What is Gnosticism? Not really defined in the article. basilwhite 18:12, 17 Jan 2007 (UTC)

While many scholars have attempted to offer a generic description of Gnostic belief systems, literally every author who has been published has failed, because no one is really going to understand very much unless the basics are first explained in terms of the original intent of the word; that originally the word Gnostic was limited in terms of one who follows in Philo’s (20B.C.-42 A.D.) footsteps to wed the teachings of Plato (427-347 B.C.) to the Old and New Testaments, by primarily justifying the same through the teachings that Plato learned from Moses, to produce a supposedly new and different philosophical position on the nature of the soul relative to Platonism and thereby profess a supposedly new and different “secret” knowledge of the truth and salvation.

That is, although the term Gnosis itself can be briefly described in terms of the fact that Gnostics held that Redemption was associated with mankind’s ability to overcome the grossness of matter and the ultimate end of all physical existence in terms of the return to the androgynous monotheistic God, even that conveys very little unless it is somehow presented in contrast to the Judeo-Christian belief that an immortal soul can only be experienced in terms of restoration of the biolongevity once experienced but lost by Adam and Eve, or equally in contrast to those forms of Buddhism where there is the recognizition that the karmic self is mistaken for the real self, which is reflected doctrine of “no-soul” and referred to as “anatman”, which is closely related to the subject of “moksa (also referred to as mukti)”, which is the term given to the state of completeness or fullness of being, free from samsara, the bondage of karma, and therefore the highest aim of human existence, which in its highest form is referred to by Eastern contemplative traditions as the 4th level of enlightenment, such that if anyone is to really understand anything in this respect the term Gnosis itself must be presented to contrast the Gnostic belief systems as opposed to both the Judeo-Christian and/or Buddhist belief systems which are not to be associated with a Redemption or Nirvana State associated with mankind’s ability to overcome the grossness of matter as the Gnostics held but rather the Restoration of the Stability or Integrity of Matter.

Blessings, Bill --Wmgreene 23:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I'm considering adding the Flammarion Woodcut in the manner depicted here on the right to the article, either as top image or as an image in the section(s) that deal with Platonism. It is used in this sense on the cover of Stephan A. Hoeller's book on Gnosticism. No matter what you think of Hoeller, I think it is a striking good illustration. Any comments?

Would the usage be desribed as 'fair use'? And perhaps the caption could read 'by circumventing the constraints of materiality' rather than 'accessible only to those who seek them'? Otherwise, no worries! Visual Error 23:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well the usage is more than fair since the image is not copyrighted anymore, its possibly mideval, noone knows who made it, and it was printed first in 1888. I'll change the caption and put it in. Nixdorf 14:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved content

In response to the split tag, I've moved content on the Gnosticism page to a new page: Gnosticism in Modern Times. Visual Error 23:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've also moved content from the Nag Hammadi section to the relevent article, and summarised in the Gnosticism article. Visual Error 13:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I also moved all relevant links along to that subpage. However, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) you should not have links in headers, and the page should probably be renamed Gnosticism in modern times. Nixdorf 11:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem - I've removed the title links and moved the content to Gnosticism in modern times. Any chance you could delete the old page, please Nixdorf? Visual Error 01:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

OK deleted it. Nixdorf 10:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there any other content that people think might be moved to reduce article size? I think the only remaining candidate is Major Gnostic schools and their texts, but aside from that everything else seems fairly well-fitted. Any thoughts? Visual Error 23:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quoting of sources

Going over the page I think it could actually use some quoting of source, both primary and secondary. A few well select quotes from the Nag Hammadi Library would really help in tying the explanations in with the context. (Use the new nice quotation template if you quote larger chunks, I edited the page using it and it looks great.) Nixdorf 22:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This page needs significant quoting of sources. Too many to mention really. For all the "facts" covered, only 8 footnotes (and some inline referencing). Also, when quoting a source, page numbers are helpful. Finally, I'd include Irenaeus' Against Heresies as a primary source - for 1500 years it was the major source for our knowledge of the gnostic beliefs. DaXiong 06:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gnostic origin of the word "matrix"

It is my understanding that the word "matrix" comes from a Gnostic concept of an enmeshing mother principle. Is this the case? If so, I would like to add an entry for matrix and/or a section on this page. As it is, the concept of the Gnostic Matrix is not mentioned in Wikipedia... or really much on the internet. Every time I look for it, all I get is many, many references to the obvious religious overtones of the movie, The Matrix, with no real commentary on the original Gnostic concept where the word "matrix" seems to have entered the English language. Epastore 23:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Epastore! To be honest, I don't think the word 'matrix' derives from Gnosticism - I've definitely never heard it mentioned in connection with Gnosticism, save The Matrix film, of course. This isn't to say my knowledge is complete, but I just haven't heard it mentioned. Though the word does derive from the Latin 'mater' ('mother', 'source', 'origin') with the particular sense of a mother organism used for breeding [1][2], and thus an interesting overlap with Gnostic creation myths can potentially be identified, I don't think this is an avenue that has been sufficiently explored enough (as you say yourself, finding online sources at least is difficult) to be included here, unless you have any sources to hand. In any case, I think the meaning of matrix as being 'an enclosing or embedding mass' (and thus similar to the Gnostic enmeshing mother principle) is a fairly late development, in the seventeenth century. That said, if you can find some sources, I think the ideal place for this information would be on the matrix page itself, rather than Gnosticism... Visual Error 09:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I never heard it in connection with Gnosticism either, and the source for the movie title is most certainly the cyberspace Matrix featured in Neuromancer by William Gibson. Nixdorf 21:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I heard of the connection long before there was a movie. Or an internet, for that matter. Sometime in the late eighties, a friend who was reading a book on the early Christians told me about the connection. I guess I'll just have to try and look for it next time I'm in a library. :) Epastore 01:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

To get better or more in depth knowledge that can be quoted you should ask James Burton Coffman as he is a very learned man who knows much about biblical studies and it is through him that i found out about Gnostics in the first place.

The matrix movie takes most of its themes from Hinduism. As both buddhism, Judaism, Zoroasterism and gnostic christianity share views with hinduism, its not suprising that both have been mentioned/connected to the matrix film. One could profer a theory that all major religions today are derivations of one root religion, as many stories in Abramic religions are also written in Zorostra'n and Hindi Vedic scripture. Take Vaisnavism for instance. They promote that there is a spiritual world (where God resides) and a material world withing which all fallen souls (jiva's) are bound to. The plot of the matrix film was inspired by multiple religious sources according to its makers. In a similar way, a house is made by many craftsmen.86.4.59.203 23:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Didymus.

[edit] History of Gnosticism

I created a History of Gnosticism article to help w size concerns. I think this article needs to focus on explaining gnosticism to a layman, rather than overviewing scholarly misunderstandings and debates. Lets focus on points of agreement, where possible.

Also there is a great deal of good information avaliable on the wikipedia itself, we should seek to make this article a hub, linking to the various articles @ Category:Gnosticism. Sam Spade 15:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Check this

Check this out: Psychics (gnosticism), do whatever is appropiate with it since I assume you guys would be the experts. Dan, the CowMan 20:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've redirected that page here. The subject is detailed in the Gnosticism page... Nixdorf 20:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Monad

In the introduction's note - "God (The Monad)" - Monad links to the regular Monad article. There is some information of relevance there, but should it point to the Monad (Gnosticism) article instead? I've just noticed that the general Monad article is linked to in the first point under "A typological model: the main features of gnosticism" with the word monadic. I think it's appropriate to link the first use of Monad to Monad (Gnosticism) and monadic to Monad. - Slow Graffiti 16:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. The problem now is that when you get to "monadic" you get monad defined in terms of itself. At this point you need to go to something that defines "monadic" free of the Gnostic context. The wiktionary definition will do but from what I see all of the related pages in wikipedia would be misleading.Mangoe 16:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Look for a man called James Burton Coffman as he could be a lot of help.

[edit] Mediated or Mitigated

I just changed Mediated Dualism to Mitigated Dualism as I'm faily sure that Mitigated is the right term. Never heard of Mediated Dualism. If I'm wrong please change back rather than revert, as I made a few other explanatory changes as well. Ernie G C P Spiggot 17:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] please clarify

Hi, everyone. Congratulations to all collaborators on a good article here. I have spent some time researching early Christianity-related wikis and saved gnosticism for last, as I thought I already knew a little bit about it, at least enough to inform my other readings.

Now that I have read this article, I find I have even more very basic questions than I did before I read it, so perhaps revealing them to you would help you make this article more informative for people who do not have much background knowledge of gnosticism.

1. My notions of gnosticism included the idea that it was a specifically Christian sect. Or was it an older philosphy which developed a Christian slant in the first century, or was Christian gnosticism merely one branch of gnosticism? If it was specifcally Christian I think it would be good to make that point up front, like in the first sentence, because the article pointing out the very many influences of gnosticism make it appear that Christian gnosticism was possibly just one variety.

2. Was gnosticism ever organized? Were there Gnostic churches, Gnostic liturgy, a Gnostic ecclesiastic heirarchy? If not, why not? And how was it disseminated? Surely most people of the time couldn't read the scrolls we have access to today. Was it a belief system of the intellectual elite, or was it developed to the point of a popular religion?

I reworked the intro so that it should give clearer insight on your questions. Not really room to get into the liturgy/churches etc, but we might want to add these kind of details in a section on Christian Gnosticism. The answer is yes, there were/are Churches, Liturgy, an Ecclesiastic hierarchy. Sarastro777 03:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think an article, or at least a section on this page, about Gnostic Christianity/Christian Gnosticism would be great. I keep hearing that term and wondering exactly how it differs from plain ol' Gnosticism. Ric 12:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try grouping the movements "schools" below by some broader categories so we can work towards this. Let me know what you think! Sarastro777 19:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, while I know a bit about the subject at hand, I am not sure if I am able to use the computer controls as well as I would like in order to answer. There are a number of historical inaccuracies in this article that I would like to help with. As for the two questions posted above; whether Gnosticism was originally Christian is something still debated by scholars (and sometimes it has been a question of whether Christianity was originally Gnostic). For question number 2, absolutely the various Gnostic sects were organized. We are talking about a modern term meant to talk about an ancient category (like the word "neanderthal"). One of the qualifying attributes of these organizations was that they were initiatory.... a methodology that is quite heavily organized. Gnosticism was never popular, but did have popular elements. It often saw popular religion (such as wider Christian thinking) as an external, or "exoteric", link. I really think this piece needs a reworking in order to reflect historical developments. PMCV July 16

[edit] refutation and thanks

I would like to conclude to say that this article used to say that Jesus taught a variation of Gnosticism, and one of those refrences I would like to refute would be: "hearning you will hear and shall not understand, and seeing you will not preceive; for the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they sould see with thgeir eyes and hear with their ears, lest they shoulkd understand with their hearts and turn. So that I should heal them." (Matthew 13:14-15 and read Isaiah 6:9,10)But, thankfully someone has removed that so-called reference and replaced it with more correct ones and also hope to refute the popular novel THE DAVINCI CODE by Dan Brown.

[edit] Gnosticism in modern times

This section needs heavy reworking, and I'd say that in form it currently stands in, the article would be better-off without it. First of all, it's not a bit about modern gnosticism. Also, why is Schopenhauer given such prominence? He wasn't really important for Gnosticism. May-hem 19:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with May-hem. This section does not live up to the standard found in the rest of the article. I would say it should be redone or scrapped.--Will3935 23:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fathers of Christian Gnosticism and Early Gnosticism: Stubs need work

Wikipedia:Most_wanted_articles was crying for Fathers of Christian Gnosticism and Early Gnosticism, so I created stubs for these. Ultra, ultra stubs. Please add content to these as appropriate. -- Writtenonsand 16:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is the list of blogs appropriate?

Is the list of blogs appropriate in an encyclopeadia article? Alan Liefting 07:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say no with a slight reservation. First, blogs are not good scholarly sources for research. Second, all of these blogs seem to have to do with "modern gnositicism," a small and poorly written part of the article. Third, I have found that such blogs are usually linked by their creators to create more traffic for their blog (a violation of Wikipedia policy). The only reservation I would add is that I think it would be fair to leave a few of the most prominent blogs linked to enable readers to get a taste of modern gnosticism first hand. Still, someone with more knowledge of these blogs than I have should whittle the list down to size. Good point, Alan.--Will3935 05:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I've removed all the links to blogs, mailing lists, discussion groups, podcasts, etc. These sorts of links are not permitted according to the external linking policies. For one thing, they are not reliable sources of information. Also, as you can see, these lists simply grow out of control. Anyone can and does start a blog or mailing list, and then they will feel entitled to add it to the links. Wikipedia is not a web directory. -999 (Talk) 14:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a place to link to sites with people who are walking a spiritual path that is very directly connected to the ancient Gnostic texts/teachings, though? Fantastic Planet's Palm Tree Garden is in fact a group of blogs that is relevant. Perhaps another wiki instead of this one, perhaps this one? Not sure if there is a place for it here or not, I'm new to Wiki. SquirleyWurley

Well, no. Blogs are expressly listed as sites to be avoided in WP:EL, which also discusses the intent of the external links section and the qualities expected of sites listed. -999 (Talk) 14:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. SquirleyWurley 05:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

But in the "Links to be used occasionally" section, there are areas where it might indicate a good reason for SOME such sites, I think. For example a gnostic web ring (Palm Tree Garden) or association (Stephan Hoeller's association of groups), and there are certainly 'fans' of gnosticism who apply it in their lives today. Can this be balanced somehow against the idea of not having a free-for-all or web-directory? I'd suggest that Palmtree garden's blog list http://www.palmtreegarden.org/wadi/blogs.php, their directory of groups http://www.palmtreegarden.org/directory.php, ecclesia gnostica http://www.gnosis.org/eghome.htm, and the Gnosis Archive (which is often referenced because it has Nag Hammadi online) http://www.gnosis.org/welcome.html, are relevant SOMEWHERE on Wiki, simply because as resources go, they are very very helpful and often quite relevant, online, when it comes to people currently inspired by Gnosticism and applying it in their lives today. Gnosticism isn't organized in such a way you can point to a Pope, but there are key online resources that I think belong somewhere. If not on this wiki, then on some wiki, or if not on a wiki, elsewhere then. So I'm confused between the one set of principles/guidelines and the other, frankly, I can see a possible space between that would be acceptable, perhaps. SquirleyWurley 05:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now things are getting added again, gnosticradio is related to Samael Von Weor. If that can be there, under modern gnosticism, then I would like to see the links I suggested there. I really want to see a response to this in a couple days. Some really good external links were removed, and now more are getting added. Modern Gnosticism does seem to be the right place for it. SquirleyWurley 06:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

And they have been removed again. Someone is clearly trying to use WP to promote their sites, and that is not permitted. The gnosis.org links are certainly appropiate, but there already appear to be two included already, one under Ancient Gnosticism and one under Modern Gnosticism, so I fail to see what it is you feel is needed. I don't think we should add any blog sites, and that includes Palm Tree. -999 (Talk) 15:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

My concern is this. It's not like there are real denominations of Gnosticism going back to ancient times, and yet there are modern practitioners/sympathizers who do rely heavily on the Nag Hamamdi texts. So to emphasize gnosis.org makes sense because they have links to the texts online, and they have a number of groups associated in the Gnostic Society. But Gnostic Society isn't a definitive denomination of Gnosticism, either. So having the Palm Tree list of orgs and also their list of associated blogs, explands the link to current people doing this stuff. You really can't try to limit the list to 'official groups' because there isn't an established officialdom, but there are loosely associated Gnostic networks that really are connected to the subject, authoritatively. SquirleyWurley 08:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is about "Gnosticism." If there are groups today claiming to be Gnostics then by all means they should be added as an external link. Various articles on Wikipedia about other religious groups add external links to existing denominal branches of the group the article is about. Someone reading that modern Gnostics exist should have the opportunity to inquire into such groups. CW

Well there are a lot of organizational links on the Gnosticism in the modern day page. Gnosticism in the modern day takes up a very tiny fraction of the Gnosticism front page. Does it seem fair to keep the modern Gnostic links mostly on the page devoted to Gnosticism in the modern day? The Christianity page does not have links to practitioners, but rather links to a list of denominations page which in turns links to practicing organization. Islam and Buddhism work similarly. Bmorton3 13:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any consistency in deleting external links. I have read the external link policy. Some links deleted do not fall outside these parameters. Has it been decided that only practicing Gnostic denominations be included? If so, that seems to go against the "preferred" guidelines as it excludes directly relevant materials. I also had a non-profit academic center for Gnosticism (as described, not just the same word) deleted as being “commercial.” Does this “commercial” status apply to all non-profits and educational institutions? The lack of consistency is what concerns me. As a pragmatist, I cannot determine the policy in use here from the actions taken, nor do they seem guided by the guidelines--making them seem rather arbitrary. If there is a policy, please clarify it. Rev Troy 08:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There is not a "policy" I am aware of here, but there is a "guideline" from the external link guidelines links to be avoided include "Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming." Selling or being commercial is just one way to trip this. A website which is non-profit but used "objectionable amounts of advertising" would also be to be avoided. Even if the editor merely thought the primary motive for adding the link was to "promote the site" it would be appropriate to remove the link. Since you are editing from an account which seems to have done little to help Wikipedia other than add links to a particular site, it looks as if your motive is to "promote the site" from the viewpoint of the casual observer. If you have some other motive, explain it. Do you think the link falls under criterion #3, or criterion #4 of links which SHOULD be used (or perhaps some other)? If there was material supporting #4 on the site, I couldn't find it when I went looking. Bmorton3 15:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

SquirleyWurley So now if blogs are just going to be added again. If blogs are going to keep being added, why was that nice list removed, exactly? If there is no prominent place for Gnostic blogs on Wikipedia, they apparently will be added somewhere. I suggest that a decision be made on WHERE to put them, and then to put that list that was removed, in that place, instead of having a remove/add war. SquirleyWurley

[edit] Intro too long

The lead-in section is too long. The MoS dictates that it should be at most three paragraphs. I'm not sure how to shorten it, but wanted to make other editors aware of the article guidelines on the matter. -999 (Talk) 14:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This page could use some re-organizing. We have definitional fights seperated (at the beginning and end), and try to explain concepts in several disparate places. Bmorton3 20:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article too long

Yes, I think the article is too long. I am especially concerned about the Important terms and concepts section. This duplicates information in the articles about the concepts themselves. So we probably shouldn't break it off into a separate article. We should probably shorten the discussion of each term/concept and use the {{main}} template to redirect to the main article on each term/concept... -999 (Talk) 21:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good approach. SquirleyWurley 05:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relation to Hermeticism?

Can anyone tell me about the relationship of gnosticism and hermeticism if there is one. chur. --Tapsell 13:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, on a very restrictive defintions of Gnosticism, Hermeticism is similar to it but nothing more. On a medium restrictive definitions, Hermeticism is an influence on some Gnosticism (especially Valentinians). On a very broad definitions of Gnosticism, Hermeticism is a form of Gnosticism. In any case, it seems to have developed somewhat in parallel with other forms of Gnosticism. Bmorton3 16:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

         I just picked up Gnosis and Hermeticism (From Antiquity to Modern Times) edited by Broek and Hanegraaff, haven't had the chance to read it yet, but it might be worth looking at.

Hermeticism doesn't have a concept of a malevolent or negative Demiurge who creates the world of Matter as opposed to Spirit (ie it is not dualistic). In the Hermetica the Demiurge is the Sun who works for God benevolently. Hermeticism also has no real cosmologogy including figures such as the Sophia or Christ as it either predates Christianity or is contemporaneous with its inception (interestingly though Hermeticism shares an enormous amount of imagery with Judeo-Christian tradition - a similar creation myth for instance). It concieves of the Universe being entirely an expression of Mind, or God, or the Divinity with Man as the only created being who is able to experience and communicate with God. There are different and sometimes contradictory statements about the relationship between God and Matter - in the Libellius God is inherent in everything so everything is Divine (cf Blake - 'Every thing that lives is Holy'). Elsewhere Matter is seen as being a block to our connection with God, which has more in common with Gnosticism. Hermeticism has no rituals attached to it, it is purely conceptual/philosophical in nature, which is why no-one has ever tried to make a religion out of it. Where it really seems to have a similarity with Gnosticism is in the belief that Man can achieve knowledge of God (Gnosis) and thus transcend his earthly existence and become Divine: 'Gods are immortal Men, Men are mortal Gods'. Hope this helps. For a set of beliefs which have had such an enormous influence on Western culture it is amazingly hard to get hold of copies of the Hermetica. ThePeg 15:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

In Gnostism I believe there is the idea of illusion within the material universes due to the fallen souls believing in their own Godness. For instance, Yaltaboath not being able to see Sophia, as he is illusioned into believing he is all there is. In this case, malevolence is somewhat a harsh label. A child may hurt you, but not intentionally, he is just ignorant. One should not promote an idea that Gnostics believe that men are mortal Gods. Whilst factually, our souls are qualitatively as God (made of the same roots), man kind are certainly not equal to God in knowledge because one jigsaw piece does not make an image. God is quantitatively superior to human souls due to everything in both spiritual and material worlds are (directly or indirectly) creations of God. What knowledge one needs to reach ascension or transcendence is that which can help one's soul to percieve one's true self and one's true relationship to God. One cannot achieve all Gods knowledge, but one can realise the path to a new relationship with him. Matter is not a block to a connection with God, because matter is made by God. It is the false conception of the human body and mind being misidentified as the self which prevents connection with God. The body is a vessel for the soul, yet the body's wants can often control one's actions if one allows the body to dictate priorities. If one is trying to gratify one's senses (more than is required for substainance) as a goal for one's life, one cannot serve God. All men are born with souls which are akin to a rock before the sculpting. Gnosis or 'God science' can lead to the chipping away of our illusion of self Godness, replacing it with the realization of self as a willing loving working part of God. In order to attain salvation by gnosis, one must use knowledge to carry out penance, sacrificing one's body's wants/desires in order to become attuned to Gods needs. God is the ultimate father and all living beings are dependent upon him. The highest state of human liberation is to lovingly serve the fathers needs ahead of one's own desires for gratification. True gnosticism is about combining God knowledge with wisdom, courage and penance (sacrifice for God). Some gnostics believe that Yaltaboath created the material galaxies and planets and material bodies of all living creatures as part of his penance to God (thus allowing a platform for other living beings to find salvation). This being a perfect example of how living beings can overcome their illusioned concept of self to serve God. In many ways, matter is like a prison for fallen souls. As a normal prison rewards good behaviour of the inmates, so one can recieve ascension to the spirtual world when one completes one's penance. Matter is only a prison when one has selfish goals and desires. Indeed, matter's rules prevent us from ever being fully able to get our own selfish way. One should consider the human mind to be a structure for which the soul may operate in, for the purpose of discovering one's true self and true relation as willing servitor to God. As such, animal minds are not structured in a way that such realization if possible for the souls trapped within them.86.4.59.203 00:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)icnivad.

[edit] Gnosticism

is a noun describing the beliefs. Gnostic is an adjective associated with it. Whoever wrote the article got the grammar wrong. A gnostic can refer to an individual who believes in gnosticism so I suppose that what is described in the article (a collection of religious groups) is best described 'Gnostic Groups'. P.S. The word 'matrix' is used in several scientific contexts and, according to one dictionary, has been so used for five hundred years after being derived from a latin word for womb 20:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)mikeL

"Gnosticism" is a word coined by Herny More in 1669 to refer to groups of people not beliefs (see Bentley Layton's Prolegomena to the Study of Ancient Gnosticismp. 348-9). The word has changed much since then, and many different scholars have attempted to put their own spin on it. The adjective Gnostic, has been used for a variety of purposes unrelated to the word Gnosticism, it comes from the term gnosis which is a far more common word in Greek than gnostikoi. 'Gnostic groups' would thus include many other groups besides those refered to by the term Gnosticism, in More's sense or the more recent ones. Scholars have been fighting over the meaning of the word Gnosticism even very recently, see William's book length discussion of the many issues involved here, cited in the article, if you wish to opine on what the word "ought" to mean. Bmorton3 21:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

From Chasmbers Dictionary on the web:- "Gnosticism; noun. the doctrines of the Gnostics." and "gnostic adj 1 relating to knowledge, especially mystical or religious knowledge.etc." Or try 'http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gnosticism', and 'http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gnostic' for fuller definitions. 82.47.176.254 08:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)mikeL

First notice how much broader the term "gnostic" is than the term "Gnosticism" even on this def. Second, if some dictionaries opine that the -ism word refers to the doctrines rather than the whole social phenomena, then so be it, notice that even this definitions focuses on the groups of people "the Gnostics" (capitalized). Personally I think -ism endings frequently refer to a whole social phenomenal rather than just the doctrines (think Socialism, Confucianism, or Agrarianism) but I guess not every dictionary agrees. Alter the grammar as you see fit. Bmorton3 16:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nestorianism

Nestorianism has nothing to do with Gnosticism. Nestorianism, or better the Church of the East, is either a different varient of Christianity, or in the opinion of some, a very different heresy from Gnosticism. This referent should be removed.

Heresy means 'Choice'. Which method you use to skin a cat depends on your heresy. All churches of Christianity tend to promote part of the whole, as the founder of such a sect decided was appropriate. Many people heard Jesus, yet taught differently. All branches of christianity have 'similarities' and are related. What you really mean to say, is that each school of thought deserves its place within the encyclopaedia to avoid confusion of one sect being mistaken as having same ethos when such is not the case.86.4.59.203 00:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Oracle.

[edit] "Male" biblical God vs "hermaphroditic" gnostic

The text previously described the "creator god associated with Biblical texts" as "explicitly male" -this is apparently intended to contrast with the gnostic "'he' is seen as being hermaphroditic". There is no citation given to support either the gnostic concept of the hermaphroditic "God" or of the biblical as being "explicity male".

It's safe to say that in contrast to the gods of the Greco/Roman pantheon, who possessed clearcut gender and repeatedly had sexual relations with mortal women that produced numerous offspring, the biblical god is nowhere depicted as "explicitly male". Church tradition has assigned implicit male gender to God but neither the church nor the texts assign "explicit" gender.

Without similar citation of equivalent texts proving the "hermaphroditic" nature of the gnostic divinity, it may be best to remove that part of the text as well. I'm not familiar enough with gnostic texts myself to be able to state that such a concept does not exist within them, but it seems unlikely to me that a gnostic text would assign any "explicit" gender, even hermaphroditic, to God. Kenjacobsen 20:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I can help shed some light. The One, the Monad, the Dazzling Darkness, whatever you wish to call it, itsn't hermaphroditic in the usual sense of the word, but rather, above form and gender... it's really hard to explain in modern thought, but... it's kind of similer to the Buddhist view of Nirvana, except as a being instead of a place. It is everything and nothing.

According to Valentinian Gnosticism, as described by Ptolemy, there is a first principle, the godhead. This first principle is personified as male. However, this godhead has a counterpart or consort, often called Thought, Deep, or Silence. This counterpart is refered to in female terms. The "male" aspect of God, then, in very simplified terms, has ideas which the "female" aspect then brings into reality. It should be noted that there was apparently some disagreement among the followers of Valentinus whether god should rightly be reffered to as a monad or a dyad because of this male/female nature. In other words, are the male and female aspects of God best described as one being or as two? Just in passing, I think that "androgynous" is a better term in this context, as "hermaphroditic" connotes the possession of reproductive organs. Girlfawkes 08:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

We think of the Biblical God as strictly male only because of our tendency to translate all the different names of God in the original Hebrew and Greek into the word 'God'. In fact in the Old Testament in particular there are many names for God including 'Elohim' which literally translates as 'HE-SHE/GODS' or GODS/GODDESSES. In other words Elohim is not only Male and Female but Plural - while simultaneously being One (fun, isn't it?). The Kaballists have always identified God as having both Male and Female characteristics which split off into Feminine and Masculine energies as the Emanations of God descend to the Earth (Binah, Gevurah, Hod as Female energies, Chokmah, Chesed and Netzach as Male). God itself unites and transcends gender. It is we who get stuck on gender definitions. In fact in the Book of Genesis this is made clear in the most confusing line: 'God made Man in His own image: both Male and Female created He them'. The concept of the Hieros Gamos is based on the idea that through love and lovemaking Male and Female could be reunited and thus experience the Divine. This of course, was more than just a quick shag but a sacred act. And having said that, I would agree with the poster above who says that Andryogynous is a better word than Hermaphroditic in this context. ThePeg 15:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

God the father = metaphor for one whos' ethos is to serve others despite sacrificing one's own wants, one who's actions/judgement are never affected by the malice or ignorance of others. We could expand upon Gods personality ad-infinitum. In any case, God the Father has nothing to do with sex gender. Feminie personal characteristics also do not mean God has a female gender. God's body may have genders, but the metaphors used refer to his personality, and the various aspects of it. Same way as a man can have feminine characteristics without having a vigina and vice versa.86.4.59.203 00:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)He/she man.

[edit] Orphism & Gnosticism

Might another root of Gnosticism be Orphism. This holds that Man contains within him the mixed essence of the Divine, as embodied by the remains of Dionysus's ashes, and the Material, the ashes of the Titans burned with Dionysus. In this Orphic legend Man is created out of the mixed ashes of the two which explained to the Thracians why the soul was trapped in the body and had to undergo constant reincarnations before it could go free - an idea later taken up by the Cathars. ThePeg 15:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hindu vedic scripture describe living beings in the material world as being a mixture of two aspects of Gods energy. There is the first aspect of external energy (or that which makes up matter), and the spiritual internal energy aspect of God (that which makes up the souls). The likely root of all religions may predate even hinduism. Gnosticism may take from buddhist and vedic philosophy, as many greeks/hebrews traded along the middle east and into the sindu vallies of northern India. Indeed, Greek and Aramaic writtings were found dating to first century Hindustan. It is also possible that Jesus himself visited Persia, Afganistan and India before resurfaceing age 30 to start his missionary in Israel. Some see the buddist aspects of Jesus' teachings as support of this theory.86.4.59.203 00:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Holger.

[edit] Plagiarism

This article contains unsourced quotations from the Kurt Rudolph book.

The article:

This presented a problem for the heresiologists writing on gnostic movements: as this mode of behaviour was one which they themselves favoured and supported, the Church Fathers, it seemed, would be required perforce to offer support to the practices of their theological opponents. In order to avoid this, a common heresiological approach was to avoid the issue completely by resorting to slanderous (and, in some cases, excessive) allegations of libertinism, or to explain Gnostic asceticism as being based on incorrect interpretations of scripture, or simply duplicitous in nature. Epiphanius provides an example when he writes of the 'Archontics' 'Some of them ruin their bodies by dissipation, but others feign ostensible fasts and deceive simple people while they pride themselves with a sort of abstinence, under the disguise of monks'.

Rudolph:

The Church Fathers are divided over this Gnostic attitude, for they themselves in the main favored and supported the trend towards abstemiousness in Christianity. Therefore, they either resorted to the simple expedient of slander or made out the asceticism to be sheer dissimulation and duplicity, as Epiphaneous writes of the Archontics: "Some of them ruin their bodies by dissipation, but others feign ostensible fasts and deceive simple people whilst they pride themselves with a sort of abstinence, under the disguise of monks." (p. 257 in my edition)

The article:

Charges of Gnostic libertinism arguably find their source in the works of Irenaeus. According to this writer, Simon Magus (whom he has identified as the prototypical source of Gnosticism) founded the school of moral freedom ('amoralism'). Irenaeus reports that Simon's argument, that those who put their trust in him and his consort Helen, need trouble themselves no further with the biblical prophets or their moral exhortations and are free 'to do what they wish', as men are saved by his (Simon's) grace, and not by their 'righteous works' (adapted from Adversus Haereses, I.23.3).

Simon is not known for any libertinistic practice, save for his curious attachment to Helen, typically reputed to be a prostitute. There is, however, clear evidence in the Testimony of Truth that followers of Simon did, in fact, get married and beget children, so a general tendency to asceticism can likewise be ruled out.

Rudolph:

According to Irenaeus, Simon Magus founded moral "freedom" in association with his own role as reddemer in the following manner: Those who put their in him (and his consort Helen), should trouble themselves no further with the (biblical) prophets (to whom according to Jewish belief Moses belonged) because they were "inspired" by the "angels who created the world", "but that they should as free men do what they wish: for through his (Simon's) grace are men saved, and not through righteous works. Nor are the works just by nature, but by convention (accidens), as the angels who made the world ordained, in order to enslave men by such precepts." The grace (of the spirit) cancels out the law; a formulation familiar also to Paul which Marcion then extended into a reformation of the Gospel, without however paying homage to libertinism. Simon also did not have a reputation for libertine practices (apart from the curious liason with the prostitute Helen)... There is clear evidence in the Testimony of Truth (probably third century) that "the Som[on]ians take wi[ves] (and) beget children." (p. 257)

I believe the person who copied the text had the same edition I do. At one place it says:

Fundamentally, however, gnostic movements appear to take the 'ancient schema of the two ways, which leaves the decision to do what is right to human endeavour and promises a reward for those who make the effort, and punishment for those who are negligent' (Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, 262).

It is found on that page in my edition.

There are probably other examples which I didn't notice. A.J.A. 06:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats alright so long as sources are labelled, maybe you could be kind enough to reference them for the article?86.4.59.203 00:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Joe

[edit] Old Testament God + Satan

Given the often hash/murderous commands of the God in Torah ( Chistian Old Testemnt ? ) would it be fair to typify the Gnostic postion as "your God, my Satan". I ask this to help resolve a conflict. thanks...Wblakesx 20:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)wblakesx

First I'm going to say "Absolutely not!," and then I'm going to qualify that to some extent. Traditionally, Gnostics see the creator god, or Demiurge, as being ignorant and somewhat capricious. This is why we have things like war, disease, natural disasters, and the the whole great grab-bag of suffering that we are stuck with. The Gnostics do traditionally identify the god of the Old Testament as the Demiurge, in contrast to the True God whom Jesus preaches. So, yes the god of the Old Testament isn't all-good or even all-powerful. However, he is not wholly evil either, and should by no means be identified with Satan.

Girlfawkes 07:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, here's the problem with the fact that there was never a single movement called 'the Gnostics' but a host of movements with 'Gnostic' elements which we now call 'Gnostics'. The Cathars who were definitely operating within the Gnostic tradition did identify the Demiurge with Satan and conflated the God of the Old Testament with him too. They regarded the created world as inherently sinful and the product of Satan designed to trap and deceive the soul into forgetting its relationship with God. Thus they reasoned that the OT God was Satan as the true God would not have created the world. To them the OT God was mad, like Jaldabaoth, vengeful, destructive and believed it was the creator and that there was no God above him ('I the Lord thy God am a jealous God', 'Thou shalt have no other God before me'etc). This rejectionist view of the OT God was one of the things which shook the Catholic Church so badly and so brought their wrath down on the Cathars. Similarly the semi-Gnostic Christian leader Marcion believed that the Old Testament God had to be rejected. So in fact the issue of the OT God = Satan is not unrelated to Gnosticism. ThePeg 23:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

True that the concept is not unrelated, but, with the exception of the teachings of Catharism (what we know of them), it is an oversimplification. While the Cathars had much in common with Manichaeanism and other gnostic traditions, they were the first to actually equate the Old Testament god with Satan himself. From what I understand, this view might be derived from, or even an adaptation to, the contemporary mainstream Catholic worldview.

Girlfawkes 07:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right that the primary instance of of equating the OT God with Satan is the belief of the Cathars (although you'd probably have to add he Bogomils to that too). But my point was really to show up the fallacy of believing that there was a coherent movement known as Gnosticism. All one can really say is that there are Gnostic faiths, not that there was one such faith. Do you see what I mean? I'm not clear as to when Catholicism ever said that Satan was the OT God. One of the articles of faith of Catholicism was that Christ's coming was a confirmation of OT prophecies. One of the Church's fears of Catharism was its undermining of the OT as foundation of the NT. Good to debate. Please say more. :-) ThePeg 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Remember that bonifide devotee's of God can be served/respected as you would a God. Jesus himself promotes himself as a conduit of God and even people call him 'son of God', indicating his divinity/realization. There has been parallels drawn between Satan, Yaltaboath/demiurge, Jehovah (YHWA) and Brahma (creator demigod in Hinduism). All of these personalities start off ignorant of God, yet under go penance in order to develop their awareness. Yet upon achieving their penance, they strive to guide mankind and other living entities within our universe towards serving God. One of the problems with western Christian tradition and modern Jewish belief is that reincarnation is left out of the story. In this way, death is seen as the end, and the harsh acts of Jehovah in the Bible are seen as un christian. Yet in Hinduism reincarnation and karma play a role. One can be righly punished in one life for the transgressions of another life, and death is not the end of the souls material journey. If one embraces the ideas of reincarnation and karma, one see's the actions of Jehovah as part of his job maintaining the gnosis amoung the Jewish people as a righteous purpose (even though at face value he seems demonically cruel in some actions).86.4.59.203 00:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Ravi.

[edit] His Dark Materials

Someone should add something on the Gnosticism inherent in the His Dark Materials Trilogy by Philip Pullman. In this there is a war in heaven against the Authority, a false God who is described as having got in the way of Man and the True God (I wonder if Pullman remembers writing that?). As Blake and Milton were huge inspirations for the books its not suprising they are full of rebellious Gnostic imagery. ThePeg 23:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] gnosis

it would probably be a good idea to add something in the gnosis section that has something to do with receiving the gnosis (or central knowledge) and being spirtitually perfect after recieving it.+SPQR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by +SPQR (talk • contribs) 02:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] masonic

I am doing some research between gnosticism and masonry and does anyone know some similarities?

Masonry is an amalgam of Hermetic, Kaballistic, Alchemical and Rosicrucian ideas as well as Judeo-Christian ones. Founded in England in the 1700s it was a means of preserving these esoteric and exoteric religions in a form which could survive in a world which was hostile to such ideas. Where it differed to many of the previous movements is in its investment of the ideas in Architecture. Masonic ideology is to do with the Sacred Geomatry of Architecture as embodied in the measurements of the Temple of Solomon in the Bible. That is why Architecture is so important to the Masons and you will find recurring images in buildings built by Masonic architects - cupolas, columns of certain dimensions etc.

It is believed that all the abovementioned movements are inherently Gnostic in principle and origin. The word Gnosis is used in the Hermetica, for instance and esoteric tradition states that movements such as Alchemy and Kaballah are continuation of the ideology of the Egyptian Hermetica (known as the Egyptian Gnosis by modern Rosicrucian Jan Van Rickenborgh) as is the concept of death and rebirth - a very important part of the symbology and ritual of Freemasonry. If Gnosis is defined as the transformation of the human soul to higher forms of being through direct GNOSIS of the Divine then Masonry is a Gnostic movement, although it doesn't have a concept of a Demiurge or imagery of the Sophia as such - unless one sees the Hieros Gamos as contained in the idea of the szyzgy of Christ and Sophia.

If you want to find more check out www.gnosis.org. ThePeg 22:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

One shouldn't get too caught up on masonic beliefs, partly because there are no beliefs inherent to the organization of masonary. It is the ethos of the masons that what ever beliefs you hold, you must swear to act upon them. That is why during initiation to a lodge, one must take one's religious scripture and symbolically swear an oath to it. Some masons may have been Gnostics, but masons come in all religions.86.4.59.203 00:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)icnivad.

[edit] Excellent Article

I find this artice to be excellent. It is very objective and is not biased. Kudos --PiOfFive 02:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expert needed?

What sort of expertise is needed for this article? I've studied the subject in a college setting since 2000 and am in my second year of graduate school studying Church History and the primary sources of Gnosticism. I am about halfway to a MA degree in Coptic studies. Do I count as an "expert" yet?

I am confident I could hammer out some of the problems and inconsistencies because I am up to date on much of the cutting edge reading on the topic. However, the last twenty years of Gnostic studies have greatly challenged some pre-existing charicatures of Gnosticism that were established by a lack of primary sources and heresiological complications in the period between the 19th century and the 1950s. There is a distinct chance that I could draw ire from some of the other editors of this article who are educated in the old paradigm. 68.239.64.214 18:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)sparkwidget

Just be sure to carefully cite your sources. Unreferenced claims will likely be removed if they run counter to expectations. However, if you are judicious in citing your sources, it is more likely your edits will stick. Beyond that, be bold!Vassyana 02:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

One thing you will learn at uni/college is that nobody is a master of all knowledge. Anybody can read a book, that does not make one an expert. Anybody can learn, but it doesn't make one wise. Anybody can edit wiki, expert or not. It is how you argue your case for change that will determine how sucessfull an editor you can become. It is not necessary to hammer out contradictory views or problems, as wiki supports NPOV. As long as your view is sourced, it can be considered along with the others.86.4.59.203 01:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Sly.

[edit] A List of Gnostic Writings

Can someone kindly make a section on a list of Gnostic writings. I think it would be easier to research than to pick between the various sections & paragraphs looking for them.

Thanks

Bill (Mar7, 2007)

Good idea Bill, off you go! 86.4.59.203 01:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)joe

[edit] Revert recent edits by Wmgreene

I have reverted recent edits by Wmgreene, these seem to reflect an non-neutral and unencyclopedic view of the subject. Statements like:

allows even a non-biblical scholar to transcend the difficulties of biblical interpretation caused by any-and-all of the superimposed fallacies of the Gnostics.

implies that Gnosticism is a fallacy, which is an opinion, not a fact, and makes assumptions about the readers competence, which is intimidating. Much the rest of the prose is written in the same tone. Therefore it has been removed in accordance with the NPOV,

Nixdorf 22:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV has been breached by suggesting that opinions of canonical texts are more valid than those of non-canonical one's. It is correct to change such edits, as this person has attempted to sabbotage views that he doesn't agree with, which is against wiki policy.86.4.59.203 01:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Oracle.

[edit] Introduction: Where and when?

Could you write somewhere in the introduction where and when gnosticism existed. I'm sure I could find it further down, but it needs to be in the introduction. --Apoc2400 07:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Technically speaking Gnosticism has existed since religious/spiritual exploration began. In the West we have records of Gnosis in ancient Egypt, Persia (Zoroastrianism), Israel (Essenes/Kaballah) & Greece (Orphism) all from before the birth of Christ. Gnostic Christianity existed side by side with the orthodox Church for several centuries, went underground but returned in the guise of the Cathars and Bogomils in the Middle Ages (and, technically speaking, reemerged in the Lollard and Free Spirit sects in northern Europe and England). After the Inquisition Gnosticism went into secret esoteric societies like the Rosicrucians, the Hermeticists and the Freemasons and reemerged into plain view in the late 19th/early 20th centuries through organisations such as the Theosophists, the Hermetic Order Of The Golden Dawn and the Lectorium Rosicrucianum.

In the East, the Bagavad Gita has much in common with Gnostic ideas, as does Sufism (Sufis commonly use the term 'Gnostic' in their texts) and some forms of Buddhism. In short, Gnosticism is a universal human phenomenon. Wherever someone seeks a more direct, transcendent experience of God or the Divine you will find Gnosticism in action. ThePeg 12:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the introduction should be straight forward saying "The origin of gnostic christianity is sometime during the 1st century AD, yet knowbody know's when the first scripture's were written". That is the factual truth, as knowbody know's for sure when any of the Gospels were first scribed. Yes we have dated surviving early Christian texts, but of course nobody knows if other copies once out there were written earlier. As for the philosophy of the Gnostics, we can hypothesize that the idea's match Hindu vedic ideas from which all religion probably sprang. The problem with that statement is that it is unsourceable and unmeasurable. What would be better is a section on the history of the different branches of Gnosticism. I think one should source one's history section, as many books have dealt with this. Hearsay accounts are not worth adding.86.4.59.203 01:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Oracle.

[edit] Introduction misconceptions.

I have a problem with the mood of the introduction. It seems to suggest that gnosticism is associated with Christianity, when factually gnostic sects were branches of early christianity. The NT canon is the roman view of Christianity, but it is only one view that focus' on issues regarding the resurrection as being vital to salvation. Gnosticism focus' on works and knowledge as being vital to salvation. Yet both sects would consider the sayings of the Gospel of Thomas to be teachings of Jesus. One shouldn't promote the ideas in Gnosticism to be anti-christian or anti-Jewish. Gnostics have certain scripture containing information not included in Jewish or Roman Catholic scripture's. That has led Gnostics to having a different perspective upon events concerning the creation of the universe etc. But fundamentally, Christ teachings (the basis for Christianity) are shared by both sects. I prepose a sentence stating that gnosticism follows christian teachings, yet promotes scripture's and information not included into the majoritivly popular Roman Church NT bible. One should not overstate the differences between gnostic belief and those of other Christian sects, as its spitting hairs.86.4.59.203 01:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Yoda.