Wtf is Gnosticism

What's its relation to Christianity?
Have any major philosophers commented on it?
Is it just some meme like Land or the East Roman Empire?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaeans
gnosis.org/naghamm/gthlamb.html
mega.nz/#F!AE5yjIqB!y7Vdxdb5pbNsi2O3zyq9KQ
youtube.com/watch?v=bpKachYTr-4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

It's the only religion that makes sense tbqh

why?

Panthiest. Only way of thinking that makes sense.

how is it related to christianity in any way ?

Alternative paths that Christian religions might have taken. It took several centuries for the beliefs that eventually became orthodoxy to gain dominance; early on beliefs that would be labeled radically heretical by modern Catholics, Orthodox Christians, etc were quite popular. Because they eventually won dominance and official codification, it's easy to fall into the trap of projecting beliefs informed by orthodoxy on what is Christian and non-Christian back on people living during a time period where Christianity was much more loosely defined and still forming.

The big problem with the Gnostics is that we have next to zero information on what gnosticism was or even if there were distinct self identified "gnostic" communities in early Christianity. Most of our information on gnosticism comes from polemical texts written by their enemies such as Irenaeus, and the few gnostic labeled works and fragments we do possess like The Secret Book of John are lacking in context - so little has survived that we have no way to gauge the popularity of such works and their influence. For all we know, TSBOJ might have been scorned by "Gnostics" as a majority and only been respected by the fringe of the fringe. We simply do not know enough to feel confident about defining gnosticism or even to say with certainty that it existed as a contemporary categorization. My wife is currently working on a PhD thesis related to gnosticism; if you have any more in depth questions I could lob them her way.

>Wtf is Gnosticism
A very broad label applied to a diverse and variable array of early and late Christian groups and cults holding to any number of doctrines from text traditions parallel to what would end up becoming canon.

Contrary to popular Christian assertion, the earliest texts are likely to have been contemporary to the early Gospels; they have a nasty habit of using latest possible carbon date rather than linguistic evidence, which I think is a bit ironic but w/e.

Most of what you see about Gnosticism on Veeky Forums is a meme aggregated from new age shitposting ala /fringe/. It takes the assumptions of late Neoplatonic/Hermetic flavored Gnosticism with some Sethite doctrine and applies that to the whole tradition (le evil demiurge; where in actual fact Valentinus appeared to think Demiurge was incompetent at worst and repentant as fuck for breaking things).

This, too, mostly.
Many early Christian groups were probably passing around "Gnostic" gospels with no idea that there was anything actually wrong with them (the first two Coptic Gospels, for example, and the evidence that Dead Sea materials were a complete mix of documents). Later reactions against "Gnosticism" as a singular group by Irenaeus and others was our primary source before recent text discoveries.

>that we have next to zero information on what gnosticism was or even if there were distinct self identified "gnostic" communities in early Christianity
BS we have tons of academic evidence, see Kurt Rudolph's "Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism" which is an anthrohistorical reconstruction of community life among various Gnostic sects. It's just little known in English and largely ignored in favor of vague shitposting, half-assed academia, and mainstream Christian reaction. I used to post a library with a significant academic Gnosticism folder but have mostly been centered in /x/ for the last two months.

Hermeticism, stoicism, and advaita vedanta would like to say hi!

>advaita vedanta
I'd nominally agree but man, I have a few serious beefs with Advaita nondualism. Like, why the fuck are ya still gonna obsess over "purity" if there is neither purity nor defilement?

At that point, just go Tantra, Saivist, Shaktist, or Buddhist.

Its literal antithesis. Gnostics would use Christian mythos to preach radical different ideas from regular Christianity.

Put it this way Gnostics spoke highly of the serpent and Cain not shat on YWHW

I recall Plotinus wrote an essay shitting on Gnostics for shitting on his benevolent divine craftsman

>Is it just some meme like Land or the East Roman Empire?
Unironically yes. Gnosticism is incredibly syncretic, adapting itself to local mythos to preach its ideas.

Lucifierianism (not Satanism), Catharism are its more modern iteration (though I wonder if you can count /x/'s greenpill shit in that line too). Hell I came across hardcore religious right wing figures that spoke of the French Revolution's liberalism and humanism as 'secular gnosticism'

>Its literal antithesis. Gnostics would use Christian mythos to preach radical different ideas from regular Christianity.
Explain to me, carefully, how the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Phillip, and the Gospel of Truth, are out of line with 'regular' Christianity, despite the late origins of the last.

>Put it this way Gnostics spoke highly of the serpent and Cain not shat on YWHW
Hypostasis of the Archons does not speak highly of the Nachash or Qayin.

Even among the Ophites, I don't EXACTLY recall a text glorifying the Serpent of Genesis but I could be wrong.

>Lucifierianism
Show me one (1) Gnostic text that's remotely "Luciferian".

Based my views on the Nag Hammadi library senpai

>Show me one (1) Gnostic text that's remotely "Luciferian".
None of course. I didn't mention any were luciferian but Luciferianism is gnostic(ish)

>why the fuck are ya still gonna obsess over "purity" if there is neither purity nor defilement?
i don't know much about this yet but from what i've read the aghoris are quite consequential in that they reject all ideas of purity which results in them living in burial grounds, smearing themselves with dead peoples ashes and allegedly also eating corpses and feces. this makes them rather unpopular with the majority of society though

Is there any real connection between ancient gnosticism and the modern people who call themselves gnostic?

>land is a meme now

let me guess, Flat Earth?

Yes. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaeans

Matthew 10:27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs.

Don't throw pearls before swine.

(2) Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All."
gnosis.org/naghamm/gthlamb.html

They were a group of very early Christians.

When the Romans decided to convert to Christianity in the 4th century, they had lots of huge arguments about what was "real" Christianity i.e. theirs, and what was inconvenient to the stuff that they liked.

So they branded their fan gospels as "canon" and then tried to destroy all the other shit that other Christians believed. The Gnostic gospels were mostly all that other shit.

>When the Romans decided to convert to Christianity in the 4th century, they had lots of huge arguments about what was "real" Christianity i.e. theirs, and what was inconvenient to the stuff that they liked.
Gross simplifications. debates about what's real Christianity had been going since Saint Paul.

Maybe a simplification. But it's not wrong.

>since St. Paul

Sure, but it was when "muh canon, stop liking things I don't like" got backed up by a major military empire. Before that it was just bronies arguing over whose OC shipping fanfiction was better.

One of the interpretation is as follows: Mankind is caged in a hellish nightmare fashioned by the creator of the world (the demiurge, also called Yaldabaoth) where we are doomed to wallow in the sin of the material world. The demiurge, the abominable abortion of the goddess Sophia, has deluded himself and much of mankind into believing that he is the true God. However, Jesus was sent as an emissary by the Highest Lord of Light (the true ultimate of the universe) in order to reveal the secret knowledge needed to liberate the soul spark from the evil of the world and become one with the pleroma. This is a call to the return to the original goodness of Light's creation before its corruption. Jews are the servants of the demiurge and they and their teachings should be annihilated.

Needless to say, this is a rather extreme interpretation.

Mandaean groups, like Manicheans and Yazidis, can only be called Gnostic in the most facile and weakest of senses. Mandaeans specifically along with Yazidis look more like near eastern Paganism before the explosion of Abrahamic faith than what most people would construe as "Gnostic".

Oddly enough some Mandaean angel names wound up in Agrippa via the Italian diffusion (see Eugenio Garin's work).

Christianity seemingly influenced by Greek mystery cults
And if they're anything to go by, the titular gnosis is probably just knowledge of middle school geometry or something stupid like that

>seemingly influenced by
>seemingly
The early Gnostics had little to do with that shit (see the Coptic Gospels), but by the time we hit like, what, 3-600, maybe a wee bit earlier, we get full blown initiatory cult that lift HEAVILY from the Greek sources, I've got reconstructions of them over in the library under Gnostic:
mega.nz/#F!AE5yjIqB!y7Vdxdb5pbNsi2O3zyq9KQ

The Brill edition on initiatory seals, iirc.

>And if they're anything to go by, the titular gnosis is probably just knowledge of middle school geometry or something stupid like that
Pythagoreanism =/= the astrotheological systems implied by Elesuis and Dionysus.

I believe it was one of the three major metaphysical teachings of the mid-late Roman Empire (Christianity, Neoplatonism, Gnosticism).

Nick Land

Christianity is the heresy of Gnosticism.

>le evil demiurge

>gnostics in Veeky Forums are fringe because they are Naassene!

An Umbrella term to many different forms of Christianity, Marcianism, Sethianism, Valentinianism etc.

They were quite popular and were major contenders for what was the `true belief`. If you look early christian writings from this perspective you will understand their attacks and their apologies better

This

>An Umbrella term

Many experts in gnosticism argue that it wasn't a set of differentiated beliefs save for the gnostics that simply belong to a different religion.

>argue that it wasn't a set of differentiated beliefs
Who?
Kurt Rudolph and other academic authors I'm familiar with (via Brill, mostly) deeply stress how variable the sects under the label "Gnostic" functionally were.

IJS, Nassene =/= the end all-be all of Gnostic doctrine/cosmology.

In fact the slight majority of these groups did not hold Demiurge as an entity of cosmic evil.

>slight majority

Religion is not for the majorities, but for an elect few.

Read pic related

You seem to be missing the point that many people take Nassene and Ophite iterations of doctrine and apply them erroneously to the systems of folks like Valentinus and the Barbeloites.

It's just weird considering the Coptic Gospels contain none of that 2nd C. Neoplatonic syncretism, let alone ascription of evil the creator.

Also pic related.

I really cannot pimp it hard enough and the folks I've turned on to it all seem to enjoy it.

>You seem to be missing the point

We meet again, I received gnosis, you didn't, I believe I'm more interested than a failed wizard in the topic and your approach seems very fallible.

K. Good for you bro.

Ridicule is the answer of the mediocre.

>meme like Land
What meme would this be?

>Ridicule is the answer of the mediocre.
>We meet again, I received gnosis, you didn't, I believe I'm more interested than a failed wizard in the topic and your approach seems very fallible.

Nick Land, a weird sorta rightish philosopher that used to publish really interesting material in journals like Collapse but then went on a bathsalts binge and moved to China where he peddles his own brand of Lovecraftian nihilistic transhumanism rooted in a Gibsonian take on modern techbro culture.

>Nick Land
Oh that guy, right.
I didn't associate him with Veeky Forums memes. It's not a name you hear mentioned outside of /pol/ usually.

Are you suggesting you're not a failed wizard from /x/? Or that I was ridiculing you for mentioning your interest in magic?

Let me burst your bubble, the reason why you are less prone to be accurate into gnosticism is because it is a secondarity for you, as for your success as a magician, well, I highly doubt it for a reason.

>Are you suggesting you're not a failed wizard from /x/? Or that I was ridiculing you for mentioning your interest in magic?
Yes.
I'm from Veeky Forums, originally.
My life and practice is fine, thanks.
And it's pretty clear you're condescending to me as lesser but accusing me of unwarranted ridicule when I dismiss said condescension.

>the reason why you are less prone to be accurate into gnosticism is because it is a secondarity for you
It's cute how you think you have intimate knowledge of my praxis. How often do you perform the Mass of the Holy Ghost?

>I highly doubt it for a reason.
Good for you.

youtube.com/watch?v=bpKachYTr-4

And my reason for doubting you is because even tough you've done magic in public on /x/ and it has failed, you still don't see the problem.

Do you actually understand the intent and intended results of an invultation? Because I've explained it to you at least three times now, haven't seemed to grasp it each time, and don't appear to notice that the intended public goal has come to pass.

You haven't explained that to me ever actually, you must mistake me for somebody who's condescending to you?

I'm just a wee bit pissed because you're a tradition hitler and I hold the belief that knowledge is a bitch to gather because people who write it down get silly with the pencil.

>you must mistake me for somebody who's condescending to you?
Possibly. There are a lot of FUNposters.

Invultation is not meant to bring harm. At all. There's other shit I did too but I don't have a bead on them. Hopefully the quiet in /div/ is indication enough of secondary result.

>you're a tradition hitler
Not really; NRMs are fine. Synchretism is fine. Personal experience is key. But if you're doing math on the back of an envelope at least have the decency to check your calculations.

Oral traditions compliment, they don't substitute.

You're okayer than I first though while talking to you other times, I guess I misjudged you.

I'm the guy who saw a girl in a forest during meditation, the girl surrounded by wolves on a night forest on a clearing, and then experienced gnosis at night.

Not sure if you remember me though.


In any case I'm trying to piece together the whole puzzle and it's frankly annoying because there's this notion that many people in the world obey the demiurge and work with him, so texts are not to be trusted.

> not Mithraism
user...

Yep, I own this one, it's broken down into concise sections that can be read cover to cover or as a reference material.

What would be the liturgy, theology, and so on, of a Zen-Gnostic syncretic religion as suggrested by Dan Simmons in the Hyperion Cantos?

It's a much more interesting take on Christianity. Shame it never caught on. Nicene Christianity is the most boring and vanilla of them all.