Welcome to Gaia! ::

Considering that there are many many definitions on what Gnosticism is, I will provide a definition for what I am calling Christian Gnosticism. Christian Gnosticism is a set of heretical traditions of mysticism that we first have evidence of appearing around the beginning the 2nd century and disappearing around the end of the 5th century. These sects are loosely organized by three key elements: that the emulation of Christ is central and the primary form of worship; that there is a distinction between God and creator; and that a particular gnosis is central and key to salvation.

First off to answer some questions.

Why is there a distinction between God and creator, isn't God the creator?
In the Gnostic belief system no. In the Gnostic creation mythos, the creator is a being that was flawed from his birth. He fell into an area that eventually became the material cosmos. Part of his flaw is that he is made of a different substance than God, thus not an emanation. While a divine being in his own right and he could be considered a god, he is not considered God in Gnostic mythos since he does not qualify as an emanation. The other reason for this distinction is how they function. God can produce thing and make things. The Creator can only form things from things already produced. Nothing new is actually produced from this Creator, it's the same stuff just reshaped, remodeled, and reformed.

Where did this creator come from?
To explain that, I will have to touch upon the concept of emanations. An emanation is something that comes forth from something else. From God various polarities emanated. These emanations reside in a realm called the Pleroma, which is Greek for “Fullness.” These polarities emanated other polarities as they sought to know God for themselves. Eventually one aspect of the lowest of the polarities tried to know God without her consort. The result was the creation of the material world and a being called Yaldaboth, the Demiurge (the creator). This being fell outside of the Pleroma and while connected to God through spirit, he is physically disconnected from this realm of Fullness.

What is gnosis?
Gnosis is an experiential understanding of some form of divinity. For Christian Gnostics, this is a particular gnosis that is key to one's salvation.

What is one being saved from?
The belief in the Gnostic systems is that all of humanity are children of God and our core is a seed of God via Sophia's emanation. According to the Gnostic mythos, to make humanity, the creator(s) modeled our bodies and mind after an aspect of God and used Sophia to bring humanity to life. We are part of the creator(s), systems and either directly or indirectly keep his system going. Salvation is freedom from that system so one doesn't have to serve that system nor stay in it.

Does this gnosis guarantee salvation?
The Gnostic writings seem to think so but personally I have my doubts. I think gnosis is a key to salvation and a starting point but I personally believe it is arrogant and quite limiting to see gnosis in and of itself as salvation lest it becomes no different from some Protestant's denominations concept of “saved”.

So creation is evil?
No Creation is not evil it is indifferent. Though many of the Gnostic texts speak very negatively about creation this is more of a result of noticing how uncaring and indifferent nature is given how common it was, and still is, to personify nature.

Then the Creator is evil?
No the creator is not evil, just imperfect. To label the creator as evil is to say that anything imperfect is evil, which would make anybody, including one's self, evil.

Is the YHVH the creator?
I don't know. It's possible that he is but I have my doubts. While the mythos of the Demiurge does seem to correlate with creation mythos of YHVH, I do not believe that mythos is describing YHVH as the Demiurge but rather used the creation mythos of YHVH to explain what this Demiurge is within the various Gnostic systems.

What is meant by imperfect?
In the Gnostic mythos, anything material is considered imperfect. All things in this world decay and return its original source. People die, stars loose their shine, elements decay, all these things show how temporal our world is. The only substance that is immutable and perfect is spirit. Now does this mean anything spiritual is perfect? Depends. There is spirit that comes from the Pleroma and there is another substance which resembles spirit but is ultimately material in nature, it will decay and it is mutable. What makes the material imperfect is that it will pass away, making it shaky to use in the formulation of self and coming to know God.

Isn't this polytheism?
No it is henotheism, specifically monolateralism. The emanations are of the same substance as God and are in essence different understandings of God. Each emanated pair is a representation of an understanding of God which can produce new truths. The Demiurge and the other divine material beings that came from Sophia are not objects of worship in the Gnostic context. Again this relates to how they function. God and the emanations can actually make things. The Demiurge and other gods cannot. All they can do is form things from matter and base their crafts off of what was already created and produced by God and the emanations.

Given how worship is defined in this Gnostic framework as emulation of the Christ spirit, it would appear that the worship, in the traditional sense, of other deities would not contradict the Gnosticism fitting under the "giving what is unto what is Caesar's what is Caesar's and unto God's what is God's". Though there are conditions. First it depends on if other gods are false to you or not. If you have evidence or reason to believe that they exist, then they are not false gods. Second it depends on what type of relationship that other gods want from you. If they put you in a state of spiritual slavery or expect something more than what is theirs then avoid it lest you serve two masters.

Wait, wait, doesn’t the text, “The Teachings of Silvanas”, speak against this?
In one of the texts found in the Nag Hammadi Library, The Teachings of Silvanas, Silvanas writes that those who say there are many Gods are fools. The concept of God in Gnosticism is singular in that there is one will, not many wills directing an individual because there is only one will that will lead you to the Father and that will is the in-dwelling Christ. This also goes back to the belief that God is the initial source of all objective Truth. To say there are many Gods is to say there are many initial sources of objective Truth. To accept that there are many initial sources of objective Truth would imply that any objective Truth is subjective thus objective truth is non-existent. In this guide I distinguish between God and gods where gods are of a lesser and different type of divinity than God. This would be much like the difference between kings and an Emperor.

To put this analogy into perspective, if I choose to live in a King's land, then I'm going to have to pay taxes to him and abide by whatever laws are in that land. I have a Father in a distant land with a grand Empire that I am Heir to and can claim at anytime but I don't know how to get back. If paying taxes and following the laws of the land doesn't prevent me from finding my way back home nor giving them something that belongs to my Father, then why not pay taxes and follow the laws while I'm there? Now if they did prevent me from finding my way back home or ask me to give them something of my Father's to be there then I should avoid that kingdom all together and if I'm there get out of that kingdom as quickly as I can and oppose this King if I need to.

What happens to those that don't receive gnosis and salvation?
Different texts say different things but the only thing that appears to be consistent is that one stays trapped in the material universe. Different Gnostics are going to have different and diverse opinions on it though. One of the popular ideas is that one would continue to reincarnate until one received gnosis. Another idea is that one goes to a particular material metaphysical realm/afterlife depending on various circumstances. A less popular idea is that one just stops existing after death without gnosis and a few believe like the ancient Gnostics did that one would suffer eternal damnation. The short and sweet is that no one seems to exactly know and for some, these other possible outcomes would be desired by some as opposed to where Gnostics want to go.

How does one gain the gnosis that the Gnostics were looking for?
There are various ideas and methods out there but how one receives gnosis is personal. For me, it was letting go of my assumptions who I thought God, Jesus, Christ, etc, were and to seek out who/what they were for me. Since Gnosticism is generally an orthodox religion there is a “right thought” or rather a right way of thinking that one has to be in order to receive it. What that orthodoxy is exactly, I'm not sure. I do believe that is a personal orthodoxy (I could be wrong on this) relating to how one expresses the Law of Agape but whatever this orthodoxy is, it should help one come to understanding of one's self and core and by extension God.

What is the Law of Agape?
This is a central concept to Christianity. Agape is a Greek word literally translated as “love” but focusing one the affection aspect associated concerning love. Christians are asked to love God, your neighbor, your enemy, and yourself. This is accomplished through the emulation of Christ.

So how does Christ play into all of this?
Christ is where Gnosis comes from. Christ is an emanation from God sent to correct the error of Sophia and bring those seeds back to God.

Is Yeshua (Jesus) the Christ?
Yes in that Christ dwells in all the seeds of God and that the Christ spirit can take many forms. Now if the historic individual was literally the Christ spirit, I don't know but the mythos being historically literal is largely irrelevant to Gnosticism

Then why is Yeshua (Jesus) important?
If he did exist, then he was the first person to show people how to see God for themselves.

So what about the Bible? Doesn't Gnosticism go against the Bible?
What should be known about the Bible is that it is a collection of texts from different sects of Christians used to support a particular theology. The texts that were approved as canon by the Synod of Hippo in 393 CE was to support the catholicism movement, the unification of all theologies of the various Christian sects into one theology. This canon became the Bible we know today. Protestant, Mormon, and Jehovah Witness Bibles are all based on this canon. In the early days of Christianity there was no standard canon. The need for a standardized universal canon arose with the emergence of Marcion's theology of Christianity. To counter his theology and other opposing theologies, texts were included, excluded, or manufactured into what became the official canon.

The canon I personally work with in my Gnostic system is the texts of the New Testament: excluding 1 Timothy; 2 Timothy; and Titus, and the texts of the Nag Hammadi Library. The reason for excluding 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus is that these texts did not appear until the need to counter Marcionism arose which makes it's claimed origin to Paul questionable. Also these texts seem to be focused on how to run the Church than covering anything spiritually significant. Interestingly enough, the canon used by Valentinius is surprising close to what became the catholic canon though it is unknown which versions of the Catholic canonical texts he used.

Paul? Isn't he an enemy to the Gnostics and is anti-Gnostic?
This seems to be a common rallying cry among Gnostics and certain sects of Christians in order to disassociate themselves from one another, but it's unclear what his views concerning Gnosticism were. It should be noted though in historic Gnostic sects he was highly regarded. Many of his texts were used by the Valentinians. Personally I see him as important to Christian Gnosticism since he opened Christianity to the Gentiles by making Christianity work outside a Jewish context. Whether this is a good or bad thing, I leave that for the seeker to figure out for themselves.

I saw on some youtube video about the original apostles being Gnostics. Is that true?
Yes and no. Yes in that Gnostic was an antiquated and archaic term for Perfected Christian or "Living Saints. No in that the term Gnostic originated as a slur used by St. Ireaneus in the 2nd Century CE to sweepingly mock various sects of Christians he didn't agree with, especially the Sethians since their mythos is the foundation for many of the sects labeled as Gnostic. The evidence for this is that he would often refer to these Christians as "so called Gnostics" rather than just Gnostics. The groups he labeled as Gnostics really had very little in common with each other. The other issue with saying that the original apostles were Gnostics is the dating of Gnostic literature. The earliest "Gnostic" writing is possibly the Gospel of Thomas but it's unclear on if it was written around 40 CE, making it a contemporary document, or written around 140 CE, making the claim of the original apostles being Gnostics false. Next there is a movement in recent scholarship to not consider the Gospel of Thomas as gnostic since it lacks the fall of Sophia mythos and demiurge mythos which is trademark of Gnostic literature.

What about the Gnostic persecution by the Catholic Church?
There is no evidence supporting that there ever was a mass persecution of Gnostics by Catholics or the Roman government. They were protested and highly debated but there are no documents from the Church or Roman records endorsing any attacks specifically on the Gnostics. Now there was one documented attack on a group of Valentinians but it was a result of them being at the wrong place, at the wrong time, not because they were Gnostics.

Wasn't the Nicene Creed designed to weed out the Gnostics?
No. Gnosticism was not an issue at the Council of Nicene. The purpose of the Nicene Creed was being inclusive though it was specifically designed to exclude one sect, the Arians. Many strains of Christianity labeled as Gnosticism had died out and those that did exist were workable within the structure of the Nicene Creed. To demonstrate, Valentinianism continued on well until the end of the 5th century teaching along and within the Catholic Church despite being a labeled a heresy.