This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
If anybody is interested in gnosticism, he can use this userbox on his page.{{User:Arthur_B/Gnosis}}
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.218.77 ( talk) 17:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Look for a man called James Burton Coffman as he could be a lot of help.
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)
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'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)
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.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Researchergonechristian ( talk • contribs) 17:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Is the list of blogs appropriate in an encyclopeadia article? Alan Liefting 07:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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
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)
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)
Can anyone tell me about the relationship of gnosticism and hermeticism if there is one. chur. -- Tapsell 13:34, 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)
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
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
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)
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)
This article contains unsourced quotations from the Kurt Rudolph book.
The article:
Rudolph:
The article:
Rudolph:
I believe the person who copied the text had the same edition I do. At one place it says:
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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
Since nobody has been able to address the concerns of a drive by tagger and an editor who has specifically requested more information, I've removed the tag. Viriditas ( talk) 00:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Have you even tried to contact Sam before doing any of this? LoveMonkey ( talk) 16:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think Sam was alright and hope he had reasons for leaving other then negativity. LoveMonkey ( talk) 01:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
I have reverted recent edits by Wmgreene, these seem to reflect an non-neutral and unencyclopedic view of the subject. Statements like:
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)
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 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.
Category:Gnostic saints has been nominated for deletion: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 23#Category:Gnostic_saints.
I think it would be useful there to have input from editors with expertise in gnosticism. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Which other sources there are for the idea of Gnostic Saints besides Aleister Crowley? That guy is a notorious liar who enjoyed shocking people for the heck of it. Definitely not a reliable source for anything at all. Luis Dantas 15:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Anybody know the source of this, claimed to be Extinction or Oblivion, in the Gnostic gospel? Trekphiler 05:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Section 'Gnosticism' as a potentially flawed category ends with
which is a severely biased statement from someone defending the term (who-so-ever). Such statements should be reformulated to a NPOV defense for usage of the term "gnosticism" strengthened by citations. As it is now, the statement is almost unacceptable, but represents an opposing view, that may remain for a while on our grace, so that someone may fix it. Said: Rursus 18:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey allot of claims have been made about the repression and or persecution of the various gnositic sects. I have limited and no where near the historical evidence that would justify the comments made like say in the gnostic article ophites or this one. So gentlemen and ladies I respectfully ask to show your sources also post some numbers. Here I'll help start the process, the anti roman anti orthodox/catholic and arian emperor Huneric and heres another Paulicianism. Also why is the christian repression mentioned which would mean it did not happen until Christianity became the state religion which was much later then the heyday of gnosticism around 150AD. Why no mention of pagan anti-gnostic persecution? This article is not only inaccurate it is very misleading. Could we work together and try to fix the misinformation like issues addressed here [4] or here [5] and here [6] and here [7]? LoveMonkey 21:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
This is probably just me nitpicking, but I'm a bit concerned about this line:
"We can only rely upon contemporary written claims and accounts, but this writer will attempt to grapple with some evidence to show that there is reason to question the accuracy of these claims."
"This writer?" Who is "this writer?" That sort of language is appropriate when writing an academic paper, but in an encyclopedia it's rather suspicious. Common shortcuts you see all over Wiki have made me wonder if this line was copied directly out of one of the sited webpages. I apologize for not checking myself. But even if it's not, it really feels out of place. Wiki is not the place for an unknown writer to analyze, dissect and explain. It should anonymously present already accepted information.
Plagiarism, and that the mentioned section thus suffers from un-encyclopedic tone, as mentioned.
KrytenKoro 14:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Wondering if anyone has any info or done research on a possible connection between the Supreme Being and the demiurge of Gnosticism and the lower god and Supreme Architech of Free Masonary? It's my understanding that the Free Masons do not prescribe to one religion, but do require a belief in a Supreme Architech, When looking at the origins of Free Masonary, on the surface it seems one could easily draw parralles with Gnostcism. Any thoughts on this from others with knowledge of both topics?
Spiritheart 23:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I doubt there's any serious connection between the two. The Free Masons promote the belief in a non-distinct higher power, while accepting the religions and beliefs of its members. Basically, to be a Free Mason you have to believe in some sort of HIGHER POWER like Jehovah, or Allah. The nameless, infinite being, residing above the Demiurge in the Gnostic belief system is just as good a candidate as any, as well as possibly even the Demiurge himself.
On topic, however, this really isn't the place for this sort of discussion, as it has no place whatsoever in the actual article. - KriticKill ( talk) 20:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I have flagged this article with the POV flag and inadequate sources flag primarily in response to the following passage:
The relationship between Gnosticism and Christianity during the early first and the whole of the second century is specially interesting in helping us to further understand the main doctrines of Gnosticism. The age of the Gnostics was eager for novelties in religion, and addicted to fantastic superstitions. It was the fashion of the time to mingle philosophy, mythology, and magic. There was the more inducement to amend Christianity, because while it showed a life and power to which neither philosophy nor paganism could pretend, its teaching on creation out of nothing, on the resurrection of the body, on salvation through the sufferings and death of Christ the Son of God, ran counter to every prejudice of the pagan world. There was not a sect among all the countless sects of Gnosticism which did not deny each one of these three doctrines. Above all, the central idea of Gnosticism (a knowledge superior to and independent of faith) made it welcome to many who were half-converted from paganism to Christianity. Faith was for the multitude, knowledge for the few. The aristocratic instinct, that was the very soul of the Greek and Roman culture, revolted at the authority of a Church which imposed the same belief on all, and exacted the same submission from the philosopher and the barbarian slave. In a system of compromise, like Gnosticism, it escaped from this ignominy.
Claims such as "The age of the Gnostics was eager for novelties in religion" are singularly unhelpful. At best they represent an outmoded scholarly position. At worst they are simply and demonstrably not true. The age in which Gnostism developed was indeed religiously dynamic, but it is wrong to see this dynamism as a thirst for novelties.
The next mistake in this passage is to take Christianity in this period to be a unified and cohesive movement. It is a tenuous claim to make even of Christianity in modern times. Paul's letters should well illustrate the differences between by the fledgling churches. These churches can only have represented one aspect of Christianity in this period.
The continuation of this passage reads more like a sermon than an encyclopaedia article. This article should not be about condemning Gnosticism for failing to be Christian, rather it should more usefully chart the differences and similarities between the two, and attempt to place Gnosticism in its correct historical context.
Thomaschina03 10:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I added the Nag Hammadi library to the see also list because I think it is important to the subject. If you feel differently then go ahead and remove it. Respectfully, Soonerzbt ( talk) 00:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The article contains the following passage, 'Early 3rd century–4th century Christian writers such as Hippolytus and Epiphanius write about a Scythianus, who visited India around 50 CE from where he brought "the doctrine of the Two Principles". According to Cyril of Jerusalem, Scythianus' pupil Terebinthus presented himself as a "Buddha" ("He called himself Buddas"[citation needed]). Terebinthus went to Palestine and Judaea ("becoming known and condemned"), and ultimately settled in Babylon, where he transmitted his teachings to Mani, thereby creating the foundation of Manichaeism: "But Terebinthus, his disciple in this wicked error, inherited his money and books and heresy, and came to Palestine, and becoming known and condemned in Judæa he resolved to pass into Persia: but lest he should be recognised there also by his name he changed it and called himself Buddas." —Cyril of Jerusalem, "Catechetical lecture 6"'
According to A. A. Bevan's article on Manichaeism in James Hastings' Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, nearly everything in this story is fiction (Bevan discusses a slightly different version of the story, but it's clearly basically the same thing). Scythianus and Terebinthus probably never existed. This story is interesting because it shows what some people believed about the origins of Manichaeism, but it is not reliable history and the article should clearly indicate this. Skoojal ( talk) 04:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Update on this issue: editors are continuing to quote hostile Christian sources to portray an incorrect, distorted picture of Manichaeism (and of Gnosticims in general). Example:
This is also from the "Acta Archelai", a distorted anti-Manichaean document that certainly is not correctly portraying Manichaeism. There are numerous Manichaean documents available, and none of them contain these distorted "statements" from Mani. Jimhoward72 ( talk) 12:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that the entire "modern Gnosticism" section in the external links be deleted. These are not links the stated purpose of which is education or information, rather they are links for churches promoting one or another brand or version of Gnosticism. As such, they are inappropriate. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 16:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add that Gnostics had no idea of Christianity, and therefore Jesus. It was a section in Greek mythology, amongst deep philosophical thinkers and it was actually St John, or the author of the gospel John in the Bible that was influenced by Gnoscticism and adapted it in his portrayal of Jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.189.91 ( talk) 18:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I heard that there is currently a new wave of Gnostic persecutions going on in Egypt. an anyone fill me in on that?( Spookybubbles ( talk) 20:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC))
"dualistic heresy"? To Christians, maybe, but a bit POV for the rest of us, don't you think? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 23:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
This digression on the name of God (introduction) in judaism has nothing to do with the subject; could we protect this page from anonymous reverts and contributions ? Xav71176 ( talk) 15:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
"The Egyptian Gnostic Basilideans referred to a figure called Abraxas who was at the head of 365 spiritual beings."
My question is perhaps a bit off-topic, but is there any link between these 365 spiritual beings and the story of the 365 idols of Mecca, as told by the early Muslim historians? I mean, is there any evidence or hypothesis that this form of Gnosticism had some influence on the old Arabian pagan relgion (or maybe was it the other way round?), or is it likely that the Gnostics somewhat influenced the Muslim traditions of the first centuries (as many of the converts to Islam were, I think, Gnostics), and that some of the stories retained by the historians of that time had some Gnostic elements in them, transfered to an Arabian setting (it is not unlikely either, as the Muslim accounts on pre-Islamic Arabia and Muhammad's life are obvioulsy romanced and mixed with legends, including things drown from Christianity)...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 ( talk) 01:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I deleted this:
While interesting, I don't see it's on point. If you can demonstrate a better connection than shared language, do restore it. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 09:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
there was a call (up the page ) for some clarification on the term "gnostic". and please forgive me if i missed this in the main body of the article. also forgive that i can't cite this except to say that it generally comes from Pagels. the gnostics did not self identify as such, but were rather referred to as gnostics in an article written by (????) in the post constantine days. i understand that they were considered heretics by the official church of the day, however i think that this has to be considered untrue based on a technicality, namely that many of the so called gnostic movements predate the "official" christian church, and so cannot be said to be trying to introduce change to any previous cannon. or at least the point should be up for some serious dispute . Inforlife ( talk) 21:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
beware it has many wierd stuff www.xeeatwelve.com articles http://www.xeeatwelve.com/articles/personal_devil_2008.pdf http://www.xeeatwelve.com/articles/Eliminating%20Evil.pdf http://www.xeeatwelve.com/articles/eight_evil_minds.html the author is mrs amitakh stanford
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.47.2 ( talk) 17:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
In brief, The Beyonder was considered to be the most powerful being in the universe, essentially God. Thinking himself all powerful, he eventually found not only were their others as powerful as him, but even more so ( Kubik, The Celestials, The Living Tribunal etc.). MPA 68.79.171.54 ( talk) 01:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about the Neoplatonism and Gnosticism section of this article.
In an article that otherwise is of a reasonable if patchy standard, this section is more ropey than the rest. The opening reads too much like original research (even if it isn't, in reality) and is peppered with occasional weasel words: "if we compare different Sethian texts..."; "These early Sethians may be identical to..."; "It now seems clear...". While most of the inline citations are fine, one simply points somewhat obscurely to Amazon entries, without any page refs, and others give lengthy, unclear citations that seem to be a justification of original research rather than simple citations.
I'm concerned that, as this section reads now, it seems more like someone out there has an axe to grind; to whit, that they sympathise with the neoplatonists over the gnostics. While this is fair enough, this personal bias has been allowed to impact upon the article. I'm concerned also that the section about Plotinus' criticisms of his opponents within the Enneads has accepted an identity between modern uses of the appellation 'Gnostic' and ancient ones. Plotinus raises several criticisms which point more towards a general criticism of early Christianity rather than Gnosticism, the latter being a modern categorical construction applied in retrospect, and unlikely (putting it mildly) to be completely identical to uses of the appellation by figures within antiquity.
It's worth mentioning that I've had problems with this in the past, which resulted in minor edit wars; I'm not going to move on this without (for preference) an editorial consensus on this discussion page; or if this isn't forthcoming without at least leaving enough time for interested/involved parties to respond here. Visual Error ( talk) 09:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The section on Kabbalah reflects my opinion perfectly. Mustn't that imply that the section is a little POVvy? ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 17:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The intro, third paragraph, first sentence, claims:
But this [11] is Encyclopedia Catholica, a tertiary source that doesn't give any citations whatsoever! That is an extraordinarily bad quality source, (by Jove!), wouldn't it actually be better whether Wikipedia cites Wikipedia, which at least gives secondary sources! For me it is not in any ways clear that "traces of Gnostic systems can be discerned some centuries before the Christian Era". The sentence needs another source that can prove what it claims. ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 16:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Section Dualism and monism:
seems unlikely in the extreme, and a totally ignorant statement regarding the relation between Manicheism and Zoroastrianism, who mutually detested one each other strongly. First of all, in Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda created the world, but the rebellious "demon" Angra Mainyu/Ahriman is opposing him, or the constructive principle Spenta Mainyu. In Manicheism the evil Demiurge created Universe. The dualism of Zoroastrianism is like the dualism of Judaism and Christianity, the dualism of Manicheism is nothing like Zoroastrianism, Judaism nor Christianity. The statements are probably outright false: Manicheism used Zoroastrianism as a mythological basis, as it used Christianity and whatever it came over, but it had no relation to neither. ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 17:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is a lot of nonsense in this article about gnosticism. See for example the following text:
"The subsequent identification of the Fall of Man as an occurrence with its ultimate foundations within divinity itself. As mysticism, the modern word for the category of the study of mystic knowledge or gnosis, teaches the fall of man, and the material world are an illusion. Salvation is a radical essentialism and not based on personal choice, action or behavior but rather destiny or fate. Due to this, salvation does not occur either entirely or partially through any human behavior or agency;"
This is really absurd. There is, to begin with, no "fall of man" in gnosticism; this is really nowhere to be found in gnostic texts. The "Fall of man" is an entirely traditional christian concept which becomes all the more clear clear if you follow its wikipedia link. Man is not "fallen" in gnosticism but enslaved by the Demiurg and his Archons. Another point is the impossibility of self-salvation. The perhaps most characteristic difference between traditional christianity and gnosticism is that the church denies the possibility self-salvation, whereas in gnosticism this is essential, and, contrary to what is here said, mend to be a liberation from fate. Fate is the instrument of the enslavement by the Demiurg; gnosticism is about the liberations from fate. A third point is that mysticism and gnosticism are really quite different traditions in western christianity and should be clearly differentiated. And this is only an example. In total this article is nog only incorrect in many aspects, it is, in my opinion, far away from Wikipedia standards. Eugnostos ( talk) 14:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the "citation" that Bart D. Ehrman would have stated in his book "Lost Christianities" on page 188 that gnostic sects would have preceded early christianity. I have found nothing of the sort in this book on this page. Page 188 of Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities is about the attack of the emerging church in the second century against the gnostics. Eugnostos ( talk) 19:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The article begins with an image of "gnosticism" which seems to have been inspired by Christian heresiology. While the term began life in this context, it quickly came to be applied to pagan and Jewish writers, as well as Manichaeism, and is now routinely mentioned in connection with Cathar, Bogomil, (Muslim) Ishraqi movements as well as various modern literary figures. To the extent they have anything in common, it would be the existence of a certain kind of salvific insight or vision: namely the recognition that the physical world is not our true home.
I started to edit in this direction--focusing on the various uses of the term, and the controversy over its appropriateness--but got reverted a few seconds later by somebody who loves their own writing far too much. I don't have time for this. Have fun in your sandbox. 118.165.204.252 ( talk) 02:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The first video, "Naked Truth" doesn't have anything to do with Gnosticism in particular, just religion. Says that the symbolism for Judaism and Christianity is the Holy Grail (um, that's just Christian...). Points out that the Grail was originally a feminine symbol, so I guess some Dan-Brown-head added it because of that (*facepalm*), or perhaps some dimestore Gnostic because it shows similarities between Jesus, Horus, and Buddha; and the Bible with Astrology. The video is just a rehash of anti-religious rhetoric and not about gnosticism.
The second video, "Secret Quest" is done by the Gnostic Movement, so the uploader (GnosticMovement) seems a bit promotional in adding the video (even if the group is non-profit). The Gnostic Movement is a new-age group, video isn't especially scholarly:
The group that made it advocate using Hindu Mantras, pretty good indication this is new-age.
The video:
TL;DR: I removed the videos section because they lacked good information relevant to Gnosticism, plus there were agendas on the part of both videos. Ian.thomson ( talk) 16:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
It's slightly odd to cite Mark Goodacre's The Case against Q: Studies in Marcan Priority and the Synoptic Problem at note 75 in support of Q's existence. Goodacre believes, as did Austin Farrer, that Q is a piece of academic wishful thinking. (So do I, for what it's worth.) Kranf ( talk) 10:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
- thanks Mr Thompson. I need to think about this. RO. PS- i have read these some (going to the interlinear translations where possible), and am trying to avoid those trashy videos :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.136.55 ( talk) 21:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
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.
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Gnosticism/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Please add in the dictionary definition at the begining of the article. |
Last edited at 10:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
If anybody is interested in gnosticism, he can use this userbox on his page.{{User:Arthur_B/Gnosis}}
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.218.77 ( talk) 17:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Look for a man called James Burton Coffman as he could be a lot of help.
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)
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'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)
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.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Researchergonechristian ( talk • contribs) 17:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Is the list of blogs appropriate in an encyclopeadia article? Alan Liefting 07:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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
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)
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)
Can anyone tell me about the relationship of gnosticism and hermeticism if there is one. chur. -- Tapsell 13:34, 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)
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
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
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)
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)
This article contains unsourced quotations from the Kurt Rudolph book.
The article:
Rudolph:
The article:
Rudolph:
I believe the person who copied the text had the same edition I do. At one place it says:
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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
Since nobody has been able to address the concerns of a drive by tagger and an editor who has specifically requested more information, I've removed the tag. Viriditas ( talk) 00:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Have you even tried to contact Sam before doing any of this? LoveMonkey ( talk) 16:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think Sam was alright and hope he had reasons for leaving other then negativity. LoveMonkey ( talk) 01:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
I have reverted recent edits by Wmgreene, these seem to reflect an non-neutral and unencyclopedic view of the subject. Statements like:
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)
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 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.
Category:Gnostic saints has been nominated for deletion: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 23#Category:Gnostic_saints.
I think it would be useful there to have input from editors with expertise in gnosticism. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Which other sources there are for the idea of Gnostic Saints besides Aleister Crowley? That guy is a notorious liar who enjoyed shocking people for the heck of it. Definitely not a reliable source for anything at all. Luis Dantas 15:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Anybody know the source of this, claimed to be Extinction or Oblivion, in the Gnostic gospel? Trekphiler 05:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Section 'Gnosticism' as a potentially flawed category ends with
which is a severely biased statement from someone defending the term (who-so-ever). Such statements should be reformulated to a NPOV defense for usage of the term "gnosticism" strengthened by citations. As it is now, the statement is almost unacceptable, but represents an opposing view, that may remain for a while on our grace, so that someone may fix it. Said: Rursus 18:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey allot of claims have been made about the repression and or persecution of the various gnositic sects. I have limited and no where near the historical evidence that would justify the comments made like say in the gnostic article ophites or this one. So gentlemen and ladies I respectfully ask to show your sources also post some numbers. Here I'll help start the process, the anti roman anti orthodox/catholic and arian emperor Huneric and heres another Paulicianism. Also why is the christian repression mentioned which would mean it did not happen until Christianity became the state religion which was much later then the heyday of gnosticism around 150AD. Why no mention of pagan anti-gnostic persecution? This article is not only inaccurate it is very misleading. Could we work together and try to fix the misinformation like issues addressed here [4] or here [5] and here [6] and here [7]? LoveMonkey 21:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
This is probably just me nitpicking, but I'm a bit concerned about this line:
"We can only rely upon contemporary written claims and accounts, but this writer will attempt to grapple with some evidence to show that there is reason to question the accuracy of these claims."
"This writer?" Who is "this writer?" That sort of language is appropriate when writing an academic paper, but in an encyclopedia it's rather suspicious. Common shortcuts you see all over Wiki have made me wonder if this line was copied directly out of one of the sited webpages. I apologize for not checking myself. But even if it's not, it really feels out of place. Wiki is not the place for an unknown writer to analyze, dissect and explain. It should anonymously present already accepted information.
Plagiarism, and that the mentioned section thus suffers from un-encyclopedic tone, as mentioned.
KrytenKoro 14:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Wondering if anyone has any info or done research on a possible connection between the Supreme Being and the demiurge of Gnosticism and the lower god and Supreme Architech of Free Masonary? It's my understanding that the Free Masons do not prescribe to one religion, but do require a belief in a Supreme Architech, When looking at the origins of Free Masonary, on the surface it seems one could easily draw parralles with Gnostcism. Any thoughts on this from others with knowledge of both topics?
Spiritheart 23:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I doubt there's any serious connection between the two. The Free Masons promote the belief in a non-distinct higher power, while accepting the religions and beliefs of its members. Basically, to be a Free Mason you have to believe in some sort of HIGHER POWER like Jehovah, or Allah. The nameless, infinite being, residing above the Demiurge in the Gnostic belief system is just as good a candidate as any, as well as possibly even the Demiurge himself.
On topic, however, this really isn't the place for this sort of discussion, as it has no place whatsoever in the actual article. - KriticKill ( talk) 20:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I have flagged this article with the POV flag and inadequate sources flag primarily in response to the following passage:
The relationship between Gnosticism and Christianity during the early first and the whole of the second century is specially interesting in helping us to further understand the main doctrines of Gnosticism. The age of the Gnostics was eager for novelties in religion, and addicted to fantastic superstitions. It was the fashion of the time to mingle philosophy, mythology, and magic. There was the more inducement to amend Christianity, because while it showed a life and power to which neither philosophy nor paganism could pretend, its teaching on creation out of nothing, on the resurrection of the body, on salvation through the sufferings and death of Christ the Son of God, ran counter to every prejudice of the pagan world. There was not a sect among all the countless sects of Gnosticism which did not deny each one of these three doctrines. Above all, the central idea of Gnosticism (a knowledge superior to and independent of faith) made it welcome to many who were half-converted from paganism to Christianity. Faith was for the multitude, knowledge for the few. The aristocratic instinct, that was the very soul of the Greek and Roman culture, revolted at the authority of a Church which imposed the same belief on all, and exacted the same submission from the philosopher and the barbarian slave. In a system of compromise, like Gnosticism, it escaped from this ignominy.
Claims such as "The age of the Gnostics was eager for novelties in religion" are singularly unhelpful. At best they represent an outmoded scholarly position. At worst they are simply and demonstrably not true. The age in which Gnostism developed was indeed religiously dynamic, but it is wrong to see this dynamism as a thirst for novelties.
The next mistake in this passage is to take Christianity in this period to be a unified and cohesive movement. It is a tenuous claim to make even of Christianity in modern times. Paul's letters should well illustrate the differences between by the fledgling churches. These churches can only have represented one aspect of Christianity in this period.
The continuation of this passage reads more like a sermon than an encyclopaedia article. This article should not be about condemning Gnosticism for failing to be Christian, rather it should more usefully chart the differences and similarities between the two, and attempt to place Gnosticism in its correct historical context.
Thomaschina03 10:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I added the Nag Hammadi library to the see also list because I think it is important to the subject. If you feel differently then go ahead and remove it. Respectfully, Soonerzbt ( talk) 00:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The article contains the following passage, 'Early 3rd century–4th century Christian writers such as Hippolytus and Epiphanius write about a Scythianus, who visited India around 50 CE from where he brought "the doctrine of the Two Principles". According to Cyril of Jerusalem, Scythianus' pupil Terebinthus presented himself as a "Buddha" ("He called himself Buddas"[citation needed]). Terebinthus went to Palestine and Judaea ("becoming known and condemned"), and ultimately settled in Babylon, where he transmitted his teachings to Mani, thereby creating the foundation of Manichaeism: "But Terebinthus, his disciple in this wicked error, inherited his money and books and heresy, and came to Palestine, and becoming known and condemned in Judæa he resolved to pass into Persia: but lest he should be recognised there also by his name he changed it and called himself Buddas." —Cyril of Jerusalem, "Catechetical lecture 6"'
According to A. A. Bevan's article on Manichaeism in James Hastings' Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, nearly everything in this story is fiction (Bevan discusses a slightly different version of the story, but it's clearly basically the same thing). Scythianus and Terebinthus probably never existed. This story is interesting because it shows what some people believed about the origins of Manichaeism, but it is not reliable history and the article should clearly indicate this. Skoojal ( talk) 04:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Update on this issue: editors are continuing to quote hostile Christian sources to portray an incorrect, distorted picture of Manichaeism (and of Gnosticims in general). Example:
This is also from the "Acta Archelai", a distorted anti-Manichaean document that certainly is not correctly portraying Manichaeism. There are numerous Manichaean documents available, and none of them contain these distorted "statements" from Mani. Jimhoward72 ( talk) 12:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that the entire "modern Gnosticism" section in the external links be deleted. These are not links the stated purpose of which is education or information, rather they are links for churches promoting one or another brand or version of Gnosticism. As such, they are inappropriate. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 16:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add that Gnostics had no idea of Christianity, and therefore Jesus. It was a section in Greek mythology, amongst deep philosophical thinkers and it was actually St John, or the author of the gospel John in the Bible that was influenced by Gnoscticism and adapted it in his portrayal of Jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.189.91 ( talk) 18:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I heard that there is currently a new wave of Gnostic persecutions going on in Egypt. an anyone fill me in on that?( Spookybubbles ( talk) 20:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC))
"dualistic heresy"? To Christians, maybe, but a bit POV for the rest of us, don't you think? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 23:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
This digression on the name of God (introduction) in judaism has nothing to do with the subject; could we protect this page from anonymous reverts and contributions ? Xav71176 ( talk) 15:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
"The Egyptian Gnostic Basilideans referred to a figure called Abraxas who was at the head of 365 spiritual beings."
My question is perhaps a bit off-topic, but is there any link between these 365 spiritual beings and the story of the 365 idols of Mecca, as told by the early Muslim historians? I mean, is there any evidence or hypothesis that this form of Gnosticism had some influence on the old Arabian pagan relgion (or maybe was it the other way round?), or is it likely that the Gnostics somewhat influenced the Muslim traditions of the first centuries (as many of the converts to Islam were, I think, Gnostics), and that some of the stories retained by the historians of that time had some Gnostic elements in them, transfered to an Arabian setting (it is not unlikely either, as the Muslim accounts on pre-Islamic Arabia and Muhammad's life are obvioulsy romanced and mixed with legends, including things drown from Christianity)...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 ( talk) 01:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I deleted this:
While interesting, I don't see it's on point. If you can demonstrate a better connection than shared language, do restore it. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 09:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
there was a call (up the page ) for some clarification on the term "gnostic". and please forgive me if i missed this in the main body of the article. also forgive that i can't cite this except to say that it generally comes from Pagels. the gnostics did not self identify as such, but were rather referred to as gnostics in an article written by (????) in the post constantine days. i understand that they were considered heretics by the official church of the day, however i think that this has to be considered untrue based on a technicality, namely that many of the so called gnostic movements predate the "official" christian church, and so cannot be said to be trying to introduce change to any previous cannon. or at least the point should be up for some serious dispute . Inforlife ( talk) 21:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
beware it has many wierd stuff www.xeeatwelve.com articles http://www.xeeatwelve.com/articles/personal_devil_2008.pdf http://www.xeeatwelve.com/articles/Eliminating%20Evil.pdf http://www.xeeatwelve.com/articles/eight_evil_minds.html the author is mrs amitakh stanford
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.47.2 ( talk) 17:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
In brief, The Beyonder was considered to be the most powerful being in the universe, essentially God. Thinking himself all powerful, he eventually found not only were their others as powerful as him, but even more so ( Kubik, The Celestials, The Living Tribunal etc.). MPA 68.79.171.54 ( talk) 01:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about the Neoplatonism and Gnosticism section of this article.
In an article that otherwise is of a reasonable if patchy standard, this section is more ropey than the rest. The opening reads too much like original research (even if it isn't, in reality) and is peppered with occasional weasel words: "if we compare different Sethian texts..."; "These early Sethians may be identical to..."; "It now seems clear...". While most of the inline citations are fine, one simply points somewhat obscurely to Amazon entries, without any page refs, and others give lengthy, unclear citations that seem to be a justification of original research rather than simple citations.
I'm concerned that, as this section reads now, it seems more like someone out there has an axe to grind; to whit, that they sympathise with the neoplatonists over the gnostics. While this is fair enough, this personal bias has been allowed to impact upon the article. I'm concerned also that the section about Plotinus' criticisms of his opponents within the Enneads has accepted an identity between modern uses of the appellation 'Gnostic' and ancient ones. Plotinus raises several criticisms which point more towards a general criticism of early Christianity rather than Gnosticism, the latter being a modern categorical construction applied in retrospect, and unlikely (putting it mildly) to be completely identical to uses of the appellation by figures within antiquity.
It's worth mentioning that I've had problems with this in the past, which resulted in minor edit wars; I'm not going to move on this without (for preference) an editorial consensus on this discussion page; or if this isn't forthcoming without at least leaving enough time for interested/involved parties to respond here. Visual Error ( talk) 09:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The section on Kabbalah reflects my opinion perfectly. Mustn't that imply that the section is a little POVvy? ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 17:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The intro, third paragraph, first sentence, claims:
But this [11] is Encyclopedia Catholica, a tertiary source that doesn't give any citations whatsoever! That is an extraordinarily bad quality source, (by Jove!), wouldn't it actually be better whether Wikipedia cites Wikipedia, which at least gives secondary sources! For me it is not in any ways clear that "traces of Gnostic systems can be discerned some centuries before the Christian Era". The sentence needs another source that can prove what it claims. ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 16:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Section Dualism and monism:
seems unlikely in the extreme, and a totally ignorant statement regarding the relation between Manicheism and Zoroastrianism, who mutually detested one each other strongly. First of all, in Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda created the world, but the rebellious "demon" Angra Mainyu/Ahriman is opposing him, or the constructive principle Spenta Mainyu. In Manicheism the evil Demiurge created Universe. The dualism of Zoroastrianism is like the dualism of Judaism and Christianity, the dualism of Manicheism is nothing like Zoroastrianism, Judaism nor Christianity. The statements are probably outright false: Manicheism used Zoroastrianism as a mythological basis, as it used Christianity and whatever it came over, but it had no relation to neither. ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 17:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is a lot of nonsense in this article about gnosticism. See for example the following text:
"The subsequent identification of the Fall of Man as an occurrence with its ultimate foundations within divinity itself. As mysticism, the modern word for the category of the study of mystic knowledge or gnosis, teaches the fall of man, and the material world are an illusion. Salvation is a radical essentialism and not based on personal choice, action or behavior but rather destiny or fate. Due to this, salvation does not occur either entirely or partially through any human behavior or agency;"
This is really absurd. There is, to begin with, no "fall of man" in gnosticism; this is really nowhere to be found in gnostic texts. The "Fall of man" is an entirely traditional christian concept which becomes all the more clear clear if you follow its wikipedia link. Man is not "fallen" in gnosticism but enslaved by the Demiurg and his Archons. Another point is the impossibility of self-salvation. The perhaps most characteristic difference between traditional christianity and gnosticism is that the church denies the possibility self-salvation, whereas in gnosticism this is essential, and, contrary to what is here said, mend to be a liberation from fate. Fate is the instrument of the enslavement by the Demiurg; gnosticism is about the liberations from fate. A third point is that mysticism and gnosticism are really quite different traditions in western christianity and should be clearly differentiated. And this is only an example. In total this article is nog only incorrect in many aspects, it is, in my opinion, far away from Wikipedia standards. Eugnostos ( talk) 14:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the "citation" that Bart D. Ehrman would have stated in his book "Lost Christianities" on page 188 that gnostic sects would have preceded early christianity. I have found nothing of the sort in this book on this page. Page 188 of Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities is about the attack of the emerging church in the second century against the gnostics. Eugnostos ( talk) 19:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The article begins with an image of "gnosticism" which seems to have been inspired by Christian heresiology. While the term began life in this context, it quickly came to be applied to pagan and Jewish writers, as well as Manichaeism, and is now routinely mentioned in connection with Cathar, Bogomil, (Muslim) Ishraqi movements as well as various modern literary figures. To the extent they have anything in common, it would be the existence of a certain kind of salvific insight or vision: namely the recognition that the physical world is not our true home.
I started to edit in this direction--focusing on the various uses of the term, and the controversy over its appropriateness--but got reverted a few seconds later by somebody who loves their own writing far too much. I don't have time for this. Have fun in your sandbox. 118.165.204.252 ( talk) 02:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The first video, "Naked Truth" doesn't have anything to do with Gnosticism in particular, just religion. Says that the symbolism for Judaism and Christianity is the Holy Grail (um, that's just Christian...). Points out that the Grail was originally a feminine symbol, so I guess some Dan-Brown-head added it because of that (*facepalm*), or perhaps some dimestore Gnostic because it shows similarities between Jesus, Horus, and Buddha; and the Bible with Astrology. The video is just a rehash of anti-religious rhetoric and not about gnosticism.
The second video, "Secret Quest" is done by the Gnostic Movement, so the uploader (GnosticMovement) seems a bit promotional in adding the video (even if the group is non-profit). The Gnostic Movement is a new-age group, video isn't especially scholarly:
The group that made it advocate using Hindu Mantras, pretty good indication this is new-age.
The video:
TL;DR: I removed the videos section because they lacked good information relevant to Gnosticism, plus there were agendas on the part of both videos. Ian.thomson ( talk) 16:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
It's slightly odd to cite Mark Goodacre's The Case against Q: Studies in Marcan Priority and the Synoptic Problem at note 75 in support of Q's existence. Goodacre believes, as did Austin Farrer, that Q is a piece of academic wishful thinking. (So do I, for what it's worth.) Kranf ( talk) 10:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
- thanks Mr Thompson. I need to think about this. RO. PS- i have read these some (going to the interlinear translations where possible), and am trying to avoid those trashy videos :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.136.55 ( talk) 21:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
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.
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Gnosticism/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Please add in the dictionary definition at the begining of the article. |
Last edited at 10:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)