When you hear the word Gnosticism, what comes to your mind?
Existence/Non Existence which is binary and isnât life and Vibration
Just say gno.
But seriously. I have already posted on that topic. To me it is a dead one.
1 Like
Itâs obviously been resurrected.
I just read the introduction to the Ireneaus part of âclassical readings in Christian apologeticsâ edited by L Russ Bush. That part (not the intro) skips book one of âagainst heresiesâ & just does books 2 and 3. I am willing to discuss what it does cover, but I havenât read it yet. At least not recently. And I donât think I have read it before, but donât quote me on that. Gnosticism is one of the heresies Ireneaus refuted.
Pursuit of knowledge, for the sake of knowledge.
Pursuit of knowledge, for the sake of religious or political power.
Pursuit of knowledge, for the sake of fame and accolades: Academia.
Knowledge without Wisdom.
Venerating memorization of existing facts/science.
Over-valuing the role of memorization compared to other intellectual factors (such as risk-taking).
Gnosticism is best understood as a collection of religious ideas and systems that emerged among early Christian sects in the late 1st and 2nd centuries CE. These groups shared certain core themesâsuch as the emphasis on personal spiritual knowledge (gnosis), a dualistic worldview distinguishing a supreme, hidden God from a lesser creator deity (the demiurge), and the belief that salvation comes through esoteric knowledge rather than faith aloneâbut they differed significantly in mythology, cosmology, and practice.
Scholars widely acknowledge that Gnosticism is highly syncretic, blending elements from Judaism, Christianity, paganism, and Greek philosophy. There is no single founder, creed, or universally accepted set of scriptures. Instead, what we call âGnosticismâ encompasses many sectsâsuch as Valentinianism, Sethianism, and othersâeach with its own myths and teachings. This diversity is reflected in the wide variety of texts discovered in collections like the Nag Hammadi library, which reveal significant differences in theology and cosmology even among groups all labelled âGnosticâ.
Early Christianity emerged in a diverse cultural and religious environment, and as it spread, it encountered Greek philosophical traditions and various religious practices. Greek philosophy, particularly Platonic and Aristotelian thought, significantly influenced how Christian theologians explained and systematised their beliefs. For example, Church Fathers used Greek philosophical categories to articulate doctrines such as the nature of God and the Trinity, often borrowing terminology and concepts from the prevailing intellectual environment. This influence is evident in the way Christian theology discusses Godâs attributes (such as impassibility) and in the philosophical frameworks used to explain the relationship between Jesusâ divinity and humanity.
Additionally, Christianity adopted or repurposed certain cultural and religious practices. The selection of December 25 as the date for Christmas, for instance, may have been influenced by Roman festivals such as the celebration of Sol Invictus, though this is debated among scholars. Other elements, such as the veneration of saints and certain holiday customs, show evidence of adaptation from pre-existing pagan or local traditions, particularly at the level of popular practice rather than official doctrine.
There is scholarly debate about whether the resurrection of Christ directly echoes numerous pagan resurrection myths. Many ancient religions featured stories of gods or heroes who died and returned to lifeâexamples include Osiris in Egypt, Inanna in Sumer, Dionysus and Adonis in Greece, Zalmoxis in Thrace, and Romulus in Rome. These myths often involved themes of death, descent to the underworld, and subsequent return or resurrection, sometimes with motifs such as three days in the underworld or appearances to followers after resurrection.
Pagan âresurrectionsâ are often tied to agricultural cycles, symbolising the seasonal death and rebirth of nature, and often involve a return to the underworld rather than a bodily return to earthly life. For example, Osiris is restored to life but rules the underworld, while Jesus is described as returning physically to his followers and ascending to heaven. The Christian narrative emphasises a one-time, historical, bodily resurrection, distinct from the cyclical or symbolic nature of many pagan myths.
Some scholars argue that similarities between Jesusâ resurrection and pagan myths are superficial or coincidental, and that the Christian story is rooted in a Jewish context with its own expectations of bodily resurrection. Others point out that the motif of dying and rising gods was widespread in the ancient world, making it plausible that such themes influenced early Christian storytelling, even if the details differ.
There is also substantial scholarly support for the view that the Gospelsâespecially Markâdraw heavily on Greek literary traditions, including the conventions of Greek tragedy and drama. Researchers have noted strong parallels between the structure of Mark and that of Greek tragedies, such as the use of prologues, epilogues, dramatic reversals (peripeteia), recognition scenes (anagnorisis), and foreshadowing, all of which are hallmarks of Greek theatrical storytelling. Markâs Gospel, for example, has been analysed as having a dramatic structure with clear turning points and thematic devices typical of Greek drama, such as the inevitability of the protagonistâs fate and the use of opponents as literary foils.
Matthewâs Gospel also shows structural elements reminiscent of Greek tragedy, such as the division into episodes and the use of literary markers to move the narrative forward, paralleling the episodic nature of Greek plays. Scholars argue that these literary techniques were likely familiar to educated writers in the Greco-Roman world, who would have been influenced by the dominant cultural forms of their time.
The fact that the other Gospels (Matthew, Luke, and John) diverge from Mark in content, structure, and theological emphasis is often cited as evidence that the Gospel writers were not simply chronicling historical events but were actively shaping and reinterpreting traditions to fit their theological aims and the expectations of their audiences. These deviations, combined with the literary artistry and dramatic conventions evident in the texts, support the argument that the Gospels are not straightforward historical accounts, but rather literary compositions that blend tradition, theology, and storytelling
In summary, growing evidence from literary and historical analysis supports the claim that the Gospels, especially Mark, are composed in ways that align with Greek literary and dramatic traditions. The variations among the Gospels further indicate that they are constructing legend and theological narrative rather than strictly recording history.
In the first few centuries CE, there was a remarkable diversity of beliefs, practices, and stories about Jesus. The synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) represent just one stream of early Christian tradition. Gnostic textsâsuch as the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, and Gospel of Truthâoffer alternative perspectives on Jesusâ teachings, the nature of salvation, and spiritual knowledge (gnosis).
Both the canonical and Gnostic texts were written in the same broad historical context and often addressed similar questions: Who was Jesus? What is salvation? What is the nature of God? The differences between them are sometimes theological (e.g., the role of secret knowledge, the nature of the resurrection) and sometimes literary or stylistic.
The process of canonisationâdeciding which texts would be considered authoritativeâwas gradual and contentious. By the 4th century, especially after the conversion of Emperor Constantine and the Edict of Milan (313 CE), the Roman Empire began to favour a particular form of Christianity. The Council of Nicaea (325 CE) and subsequent councils helped to define orthodoxy and marginalise alternative voices, including many Gnostic groups.
Texts that did not align with emerging orthodoxy were often labelled heretical and suppressed. Many Gnostic writings survived only in hidden caches, such as the Nag Hammadi library discovered in Egypt in 1945.
The differences between the synoptic Gospels and Gnostic sources reflect the rich diversity of early Christian thought. The process of canonisationâespecially under imperial influenceâstreamlined this diversity into what became mainstream Christianity. The boundaries between âorthodoxâ and âhereticalâ were drawn later, often for theological, political, and social reasons, rather than because one tradition was inherently more âhistoricalâ or âauthenticâ than another.
1 Like
A variant of Abrahamism, encapsulating their common worldview.
Anti-body.
Anti-nature.
1 Like
As all of the physical is binary in every respect then the individual needs to choose to believe or not believe in a God.No definitive proof is given concerning the existence/non existence of God.
Thatâs the first bit.Simple.
The second bit distinguishes you from the lifeless binary processing biological machine which computes that you exist and donât exist.
Existence and Non Existence is binary.There is no life in it because you can claim that you exist and donât exist.You know that you do exist or you wouldnât be able to claim that you donât exist and you know that you donât exist if you donât possess life and are merely a lifeless binary processing AI machine which claims things.
The issue with belief is even though you can claim to believe in God you can behave no different to if you donât believe in God.
Belief and Unbelief is binary therefore and is of no use to anyone.
So it would appear that God is not taken in by hypocrisy, heâs looking individuals with genuine hearts who do his will.
Only God can grant life that that which does not possess life but claims things.
The same I said about pornography being used to enhance and nurture a manâs otherwise boring sex life can be applied to gnosticism. Itâs pornography for the enlightened one. Something against the norm, something secret and hidden only he can have access to.
One is trying to make life interesting, worth living, something deeper than it seems to be.
Cioran wrote about this. He was not a mystic or gnostic, but his doom and gloom style makes you forget this.
âIn a Gnostic work of the second century of our era, we read: âThe prayer of a melancholy man will never have the strength to rise unto God.ââŚSince man prays only in despondency, we may deduce that no prayer has ever reached its destination.â
Ie, the prayer is an end in itself.
âYet a certain ambiguity existed among them: what were these Gnostics and these Manicheans of every sort but perverts of purity, compulsives of horror? Evil attracted them, almost overwhelmed them: without evil, their existence would have been . . . vacant. They hunted it down, unflagging. And if they argued so vehemently that evil was uncreated, it was because they secretly longed for it to subsist forever, in order that they might delight in it, might practice, through all eternity, their combative virtues. Having, for love of the Father, reflected to excess upon the Adversary, they were to end by understanding damnation better than salvation.â
Running from the traditional black/white, good/evil notions of the common man, youâd suppose mystics would find a way to a broader, more enlightening understanding of things. Instead, they fall into the traditional trap. Only, instead of living for good, they live for evil, or rather, they live for and in the opposition to whatâs the acceptable norm, being just another type of self-righteous fanatics.
When Bob says weâre all mystics or you say youâre satisfied with the âmysteryâ of the universe, you both remind me of this.
1 Like
And here we have a wonderful example of autistic self-enlightenment in this Jupiter boy.
Apparently willing to exchange higher wisdom, dudeâs stuck in his own verbiage, an end in itself for him, he doesnât realize his style is not prone to gather many converts and/or he doesnât care. The mystic way is too satisfying, too empowering to make him recede. Heâs the winner, weâre the losers. Heâs âseen it allâ, weâre not even children in comparison to him.
BinariesâŚmental abstractions representing a consciousness event horizon. Its limits.
Existence is what lies in-between these poles.
Probability.
Because all is in flux - energy.
No absolutes = no immutable, indivisible, singularityâŚno completion, no perfection, no whole.
In life weâre always fluctuating between things, nothing can ever be stable, we crave stability as a fixed point, for security or for convenience. We can never be 100% sure of anything, and thatâs the fun of it. For a mystic like Jupiter boy here, though, all is definitely explained, and existence is already closed. Finished. He just goes on and on, he walks in circles. His thought process is autistic, unaccessible to any other.
Forget the single singularity.
All matter is entering multiple âglassyâ holes right now (not black).All scientists know this atheists and theists.
If all matter where to disappear into all these multiple âglassyâ holes (with singularities) from which it all came then there wouldnât be any matter left to find its way back to a single singularity thus confirming Einstein hadnât the first clue what he was talking about.
His theories were disproved ages ago and are embarrassing old news now.
And what are you waiting for, wasting time here? A Nobel prize is waiting for you. 
Nobel prizeâŚlolâŚwho is remotely interested in the accolades of mere man.
Think of all the past accolades that have been handed out that shouldnât have.
Who cares if anyoneâs theories were disprovedâŚthis does not prove your ridiculous caseâŚit only exposes the emotional foundations of your faith.
God/Satan
No binary, right?
Good/Evil
No binary, right?
This freak only sees scientific binaries - 1/0 - whilst his own superstitious worldview is founded on them.
In science 1/0, like all representational language, are not considered absolutesâŚbut this freak believes in absolute binaries.
Any science that is founded upon a cognitively biased RELIGIOUS +=- and -=+ stating philosophy is doomed to failure.
I think this thread will become another endless monologue on Jupiterism, man.
Gnosticism is more interesting than that, really.
No,freaks are insane psychotic individuals who claim to be an illusion who come on forums claiming that other individuals are freaks.
Get it right.