I would like to be given examples of gnosticism. How would a Gnostic who knew of Catholic Christianity explain their brand of religion or spirituality? I'd like examples to show how it contrasts with true doctrinal teachings of the Church.

-- Mike H (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), February 14, 2003

Answers

Mike H - several of the people who responded to your question are actually the same person, using different names. This person is angry because he was told by the Moderator to stop doing that, and now he's apparently decided to "hit and run" in every thread before leaving us alone.

Sorry that your question didn't get answered. But maybe we can start over again. Gnosticism is, in part, the belief that Christ was simply "spiritual" and not material, i.e., that He wasn't really God in the flesh but just a "symbol" of God. Or that His resurrection didn't really happen, but was just something the disciples imagined, or was a "spiritual" rather than bodily resurrection. Things like that.

But it's hard to explain because there are so many facets to Gnosticism. It's not an organized religion, more like a way of looking at the world - there are no doctrines or catechisms. :-)

-- Christine L. ;-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 17, 2003.

Thanks Christine,

Modern technology in the hands of fools is a frightening thing. We see it in Iraq, we see it on greenspun (above)...

The spiritual emphasis you mention about gnosticism would agree what I came up with which was that gnostics see the material world as evil. It would agree with Buddhism on that level of thinking.

Other reading I did on gnosticism makes a comparison with it and New Age spirituality. So I agree with you again on the point that it is varied in its beliefs. I read that it has always existed alongside the Church.

What made me want to understand gnosticism was my interest in 12-step programs. I attend AA weekly as well as Catholic Church group activities.

Moderator, you may leave this thread here now.

Sincerely,

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), February 18, 2003.

Mike, I have heard and read concerns about the 12-step programs, not necessarily for spiritual reasons but because of doubts about their effectiveness.

From what I understand of AA and similar groups, there is a point where you surrender yourself to what's called a "higher power" which can mean whatever the individual wants it to mean - either God or one's own "higher self". That might be where the concerns about gnosticism come from.

But then again, it might just be that there are so many people of so many different religions and backgrounds in these groups, that they're making it as generic as possible, sort of a "one size fits all" philosophy So it might not be as serious or sinister as gnosticism - more like convenience! :-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 18, 2003.

Indeed, gnostic heresies have existed virtually as long as the Church itself. Ignatius of Antioch, whose writings include the earliest known written refences to "the Holy Catholic Church" (107 A.D.), wrote and preached against various forms of Gnosticism, particularly Docetism, which taught that Christ only "appeared" to be human, and therefore only "appeared" to suffer and die. Later in the second century, Irenaeus also wrote several important texts condemning Docetism and other Gnostic theological positions. In "Adversus Haereses" ("Against Heresies") he came down particularly hard on Saturninus, who taught (among other errors) that the Savior was not truly born or truly human, but was only human in appearance; that the god of the Jews was an evil angel, whom Christ came to destroy; that human beings were created by the angels, and came in two varieties - good humans, created by good angels, and evil humans, created by evil angels; and that marriage and procreation were both created by Satan. Some of these influences became pervasive in the Church, and persisted for a very long time, affecting the thinking of even some of the greatest Fathers of the Church. Augustine and Aquinas viewed marriage and sexual union as intrinsic evils, tolerable on the grounds that they "provided members for the Church", and excusable only when used for that express purpose - a clearly, though relatively moderate Docetic view.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 18, 2003.

Adding to what Christine and Paul said, Mike. Gnosticism is a changing philosophical system that takes from other religions. There have many kinds of gnosticim. There was Greek Gnosticsm, Jewish gnosticsm, Christian Gnosticism, and in the 20th century, to give you a modern example, there is scientology, started by a book called

Dianetics.

. It was written by L.R. Hubbard. They claim they can give you secret knowledge to succeed. In reality they keep charging for workshops....and more....like a never ending story. You have to pay for each.

Scientology's page. Look at the triangle of knowledge.

< B HREF =http://www.essentialdianetics.org/

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), February 18, 2003.

That's an interesting link, Elpidio. There's that nifty pyramid again.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 18, 2003.

Paul,

I didn't know that about Augustine and Aquinas. Can you site me any sources for their view on this topic? I know that this view of marriage being a necessary evil is not the current view of the Church nor do I think any pope or magisterium ever taught that. I wouldn't be too surprised about Augustine because he converted from a sexually promiscuous life and may have been living out a reaction from that. Also Augustine and Aquinas wrote so much, it wouldn't surprise me if some of it was off base from "official" teaching. That's like publishing ones every thought, surely some of such a vast life of writing will be ungodly or imperfect. Evil is in us and to eradicate if possible. I know Augustine published many retractions of his work in his later life. That view of his you mentioned may have been among his retractions.

Thanks for the general explaination of Gnosticism too.

Sincerely,

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), February 21, 2003.

Hi Mike,

I'll try to look up some references when I have a bit of time. I should correct one thing I said though. I said that Augustine "viewed marriage and sexual union as intrinsic evils, tolerable on the grounds that they "provided members for the Church", and excusable only when used for that express purpose". That was not quite correct. He did not view marriage as an intrinsic evil - only sexual union. My statement should have read "viewed sexual union as an intrinsic evil, tolerable within the confines of marriage on the grounds that it "provided members for the Church", and excusable only when used for that express purpose".

In all fairness to old Augie though, he was not as promiscuous as is sometimes claimed. Actually he lived for years with one woman, had a child by her, and cared deeply for both his mistress and his child. Not exactly God's plan for family life, but not the "playboy" image sometimes ascribed to him.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 21, 2003.

Elpidio,

Intersting post on Scientology, I checked out the web site. Scientology claims to be a religion, I didn't know that. 12-step groups just claim to be spiritual starting points and therapy. The use of the triangle in both is interesting though.

In life we find a whole range of helps for us along the way, some are closer to truth some are farther. I know in 12-step groups they say, take what works and leave the rest so they don't claim what we claim in the Catholic Church.

Even so, anyone outside of the Catholic Church lacks the fullness of the faith, that's the bottom line. Or as Karl Keating put it, "to leave the Catholic Church is always a blunder".

-- Mike H (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), February 22, 2003.

Hi all.

I read that the Gnostics were a group who's intentions were to unity pagan and Jewish beliefs into one and therefore bring peace and unity to the world. They brought myths and beliefs into a common theology. They taught that the concept of resurrection was not about Christ at all, but it was about the individual's resurrection from evilness to goodness or morality.

I also learned that the Catholic Church was responsible in destroying the Gnostics. I wonder how true all that I've read is true.

rod

-- Rod A. Rodriguez (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 22, 2003.

Rod,

That's a good point> "it was about the individual's resurrection from evilness to goodness or morality."

That reminds me of groups from the "New Thought" movement such as "Divine Science". They are modern 20th century movements. They see everything in the Bible as totally symbolic. Everything is a metaphor. I guess they must be classified as Gnostic as well. Here are some links to those groups to see for yourself:

websyte.com/alan/

www.divinescience-stl.org/

This concerns me because these groups heavily influenced 12-step programs. One Divine Science writer, Emmet Fox, was a bright X- Catholic priest turned Divine Science priest. He wrote a somewhat influential book, for its time, called "The Sermon On The Mount" which is a commentary on that bible passage. Divine Science doesn't ask you to leave your previous religion of choice. You can do both. This is much like AA recovery programs. Divine Science is small but sends out literature tracts or magazines much like anti-Catholic proslytyzers do. Reminds me of Unitarian Universalist influence also.

-- Mike H (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), February 22, 2003.

Emerald,to add more to this discussion. I found about scientology as a church when I was taken courses in religious studies at the university around 1991. My teacher had been a former Jesuit priest. He told me the scientologists had approached him to sign a petition to make scientology into a church. He also told me that they charged members for workshops (the pyramid) to gain more secret knowledge. I have read some sections of Dianetics, "their Bible". Around late 1991 I began to read gnostic works from the first 3 centuries of Christianity. A lot those works resemble the Gospel of John and some of the discovered works from the Qumrum caves. The language of the Gospel of John and I John sound Gnostic or Qumranic. Revelation is modeled after daniel and Ezekiel. 2 and 3 John sound alike. In my opinion, 3 different authors, even though they carry the name John. The main character in the Gospel of John is Phillip. I believe it shoud be called the Gospel of Phillip. Thomas and Peter have a secondary role. It is Phillip who receives the "secret" knowledge from Jesus as to who he is. Revelation is a Jewish work. The 666 can only be understood if you translate Kaisaros Domitianos into Hebrew characters as K. Domitsinos for a total value of 666.I knew it had to be Domitian because Revelation calls him an 8 ( the seven being: Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero d. 68AD, Vespasian d. 78AD, his son Titus who was to rule for a short period(3 years) D. 81AD. The beast= Domitian was killed in AD 96. John was writing for his generation, not ours.

Lately, the Vatican has also repealed some New Age beliefs, some with a Gnostic ring to them.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), February 24, 2003.

If anyone is still checking this thread, I'll recommend two books on the subject:

"The Jesus Mysteries"

and its sequel,

"Jesus and the [Lost] Goddess"

(the "Lost is the US edition title, the British without),

by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy.

These books are very well researched. You probably won't agree with them, but they make an extremely strong case for their points. And they are an excellent guide to other literature on the subject.

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 28, 2003.