h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Gnosticism is a heresy known well enough, since it survives even today in various forms, even within today's great churches. Among other things, it promotes the heresy that Jesus was only human and not God.
Those so-called gospels they produce are all false. The same goes about the theory of Q.

I fairly sure one of their main beliefs was that the body was totally corrupt and evil, that the spirit was pure. They then conjectured from this that Jesus was human for most of the time that he walked the earth, but took on the spirit of God at the moment he died. If you take the case that the body itself is totally corrupt, you can understand how this belief came about.

Those "so called gospels" are no less valid than the ones that make up the Bible. If anything, they are more so, because they haven't been edited by ecclesiasts.

ddombrow: Your statement about his death is entirely false. Gnostics experienced a spiritual rebirth while they still lived. Those who received the secret knowledge were the 'living,' and those who had not received it were the 'dead,' and had 'never truly lived.' The initiation process that marked the rebirth was reflected in both Luke's and the unedited Mark's accounts of the raising of Lazarus. Jesus' physical death meant nothing particularly significant in their spiritual world, since his spirit had already become one with God in life.

Yeah, you're right, I misrecalled it. The gnostics did believe that matter was evil, and made a distinction between the spirit Jesus and the body Jesus. However, they believed that the spirit came into the body when he was resurrected, and left before his crucifixion.

I don't see why you hold the gnostic gospels up as just as valid. There are many modern cases of where groups have translated and twisted the Bible to fit their own beliefs. The gnostics just seem to be the first.

There's no reason to favor their gospel and disregard the church. The gnostics were certainly no less corrupt than the church. They considered themselves the spiritual elite because of their hidden knowledge (gnosis), and were above the distinctions of right and wrong. In most cases this led to a deplorable conduct and a complete disregard for ethics. This seems to me the least likely group to produce an untainted gospel.

"were above the distinctions of right and wrong": sounds more like another group I know, called "Christians." Have a care where you get your history. I think you'll find that the more you rely on your church for accurate history, the more disappointed you'll be. Another mistake you make is when you say they would be "less likely to produce an untainted gospel." "Untainted gospel" is an oxymoron. A gospel teaches a person's beliefs, so obviously, it is tainted by those beliefs. However, the Gnostics predate Christianity, since they are the remnant of the true followers of Christ, and so their gospels are truer to the original texts than those of the followers of Paul.

The apostles were Christians who hung around with Jesus. Predate that.

The apostles didn't write the gospels attributed to them. The first things written in the NT were Paul's Epistles, and we know that Paul never knew Jesus.

So how does that help the Gnostics 'predate' Christianity? The apostles were Christians, so how can the Gnostics predate that?

Because Gnosticism predates Jesus. Because there is little reason to believe that the Apostles really believed in the things attributed to them. Because there is no historical evidence which gives reason to believe that a man named Jesus ever walked the earth, so it would have been difficult for him to have disciples. The first Christians were Paul's diciples.

From what I have heard about gnosticism (which I accept to be limited) it is a religion that was less noticed because it put less of an emphasis on hierarchy and saw God as something which needed to be found on an individual level, these are concepts which were to eventually arise in Quakerism. It was partially based on a concept which existed before Christianity (I believe some of their dualistic ideas are linked to Zoathrustrianism - um which isn't spelt like that!). It must also be noted however, that some of the gnostics were less confused by the original doctrine than others. It has been suggested in one book about gnosticism (sorry I didn't write down the authour when i was in the library - oops!) that Iraeneus was only talking about the valentinians when he criticised Gnosticism. It has even been suggested by some people that Paul was a gnostic himself! This is backed up mostly by Paul's praise of people who worshiped "the unknown God".

It seems clear that the gnostics began as disunited as the orthodox Christians did. Although Paul seems to criticise gnostic views sometimes, he is also seen to use very obvious dualistic ideas when he talks about flesh and spirit. Gnostics found the use of stories important to religion so many would have seen these ideas as symbolic just as Paul did.

Whether Jesus really shared Sethism and preached the new interpretation of the Adam and Eve story as seen in the Apocrapha of John is very difficult to work out. Many modern Christians see the story as symbolic anyway, so the change in the way the story is portrayed could be seen as a way of enforcing the new doctrine rather than breaking down the old one.

I hope there isn't going to be such a rift between supporters of gnosticism and orthodox christianity on this thread since after all - they both believe in the same saviour!

(see the following sites for more info online: http://www.godulike.co.uk/about.php
http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/rl_cmp/new_phil_wakeup.html
http://www.gnosis.org/
and my site - http://www.geocities.com/fatpie42/gnostic1.html)