We are using different definitions of the "gnostic communities". You are using the very broad brush by examining all ancient cultures. I have no problem with this study at all. However I am using a different definition which should have been qualified as "Christian gnostic communities". This is very specific in the sense that we are dealing with the authors and preservers of the "Christian gnostic literature", which forms a large subset of the (Christian) non canonical literature. I see the "Christian gnostic communities" as the communities who preserved the "Christian Gnostic literature". These communities are distinct and different from the "Christian orthodox communities" who preserved the canonical books.
I just thought I'd clarify this, as it is likely we have been talking past each other here and perhaps elsewhere.
Robert Tulip wrote:
... The church systematically distorted the meaning of Gnosticism. The Valentinians revered Paul as a gnostic, but this teaching was severely anathematised. The pretence that Christian Gnosticism was a mutant from an original Orthodoxy is a Big Lie, a reversal of the true story. It is somewhat like how the New Testament puts the Gospels before the Epistles to falsely imply that Paul was aware of the Gospel story, but actually much worse because it creates such a false impression about how the Christ Myth was fabricated.
I think the situation is analogous to how the Church eventually defined everything outside eventual 'orthodox doctrine' as "heresy".
We are using different definitions of the "gnostic communities". You are using the very broad brush by examining all ancient cultures. I have no problem with this study at all. However I am using a different definition which should have been qualified as "Christian gnostic communities". This is very specific in the sense that we are dealing with the authors and preservers of the "Christian gnostic literature", which forms a large subset of the (Christian) non canonical literature. I see the "Christian gnostic communities" as the communities who preserved the "Christian Gnostic literature". These communities are distinct and different from the "Christian orthodox communities" who preserved the canonical books.
I just thought I'd clarify this, as it is likely we have been talking past each other here and perhaps elsewhere.
Robert Tulip wrote:
... The church systematically distorted the meaning of Gnosticism. The Valentinians revered Paul as a gnostic, but this teaching was severely anathematised. The pretence that Christian Gnosticism was a mutant from an original Orthodoxy is a Big Lie, a reversal of the true story. It is somewhat like how the New Testament puts the Gospels before the Epistles to falsely imply that Paul was aware of the Gospel story, but actually much worse because it creates such a false impression about how the Christ Myth was fabricated.
I think the situation is analogous to how the Church eventually defined everything outside eventual 'orthodox doctrine' as "heresy".
Thanks Mac. I agree. And thanks Robert for addressing the "Early Christian Gnostics" such as the Valentinians. I think the three of us can agree on the severe anathematising, and that there were Big Lies told (not that we agree on these Lies).
Rather than tangentiate this thread on KRST I will make a full response in another thread ... viewtopic.php?f=3&t=771
LC
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
Massey is make-believe (DEEPLY Problematic) but that doesnt mean everything he writes is False.
Occam's Razor:
The Alexandrian connection which I wonder about is Byblos, which had a strong Osiris cult and rebirth ritual culture. Add evidence of Byblos trade w/ Alexandria in refined unguents? Jesus the Healer preached thereabouts (gLuke, gMatt) and there are some weird (perhaps, 'telling') indicators in recorded folklore of the area, which may have presented the 'original' Christos expectation. (They had the First Statue, Origen claimed.)
I suppose Therapeutae and the like peddled ointments: ancient but respectable quackery. Does the 'Christ' come fr The Lebanon?
