• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Gnostic Christianity

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Messages
16,648
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

Gnosticism (from Ancient Greek: γνωστικός, romanized: gnōstikós, Koine Greek: [ɣnostiˈkos], 'having knowledge') is a collection of religious ideas and systems which originated in the late 1st century CE among Jewish and early Christian sects.[1] These various groups emphasised personal spiritual knowledge (gnosis) over the orthodox teachings, traditions, and authority of the church. Viewing material existence as flawed or evil, Gnostic cosmogony generally presents a distinction between a supreme, hidden God and a malevolent lesser divinity (sometimes associated with the Yahweh of the Old Testament)[2] who is responsible for creating the material universe.[3] Gnostics considered the principal element of salvation to be direct knowledge of the supreme divinity in the form of mystical or esoteric insight. Many Gnostic texts deal not in concepts of sin and repentance, but with illusion and enlightenment.[3]

Gnostic writings flourished among certain Christian groups in the Mediterranean world until about the second century, when the Fathers of the early Church denounced them as heresy.[4] Efforts to destroy these texts proved largely successful, resulting in the survival of very little writing by Gnostic theologians.[3] Nonetheless, early Gnostic teachers such as Valentinus saw their beliefs as aligned with Christianity. In the Gnostic Christian tradition, Christ is seen as a divine being which has taken human form in order to lead humanity back to the Light.[5] However, Gnosticism is not a single standardized system, and the emphasis on direct experience allows for a wide variety of teachings, including distinct currents such as Valentianism and Sethianism. In the Persian Empire, Gnostic ideas spread as far as China via the related movement Manichaeism, while Mandaeism is still alive in Iraq.

For centuries, most scholarly knowledge of Gnosticism was limited to the anti-heretical writings of orthodox Christian figures such as Irenaeus of Lyons and Hippolytus of Rome. There was a renewed interest in Gnosticism after the 1945 discovery of Egypt's Nag Hammadi library, a collection of rare early Christian and Gnostic texts, including the Gospel of Thomas and the Apocryphon of John. A major question in scholarly research is the qualification of Gnosticism as either an interreligious phenomenon or as an independent religion. Scholars have acknowledged the influence of sources such as Hellenistic Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and Platonism, and some have noted possible links to Buddhism and Hinduism, though the evidence of direct influence from the latter sources is inconclusive.[3]
 
Gnosticism sound like another loose collection of general ideas, another religious kludge. Believe what you want in a loose framework. Like Evangelicals. Freely interpret.

Apparently they know the truth, the whole truth, and nothin' but the truth. Just ask them, they will tell you.
 
Gnosticism sound like another loose collection of general ideas, another religious kludge. Believe what you want in a loose framework. Like Evangelicals. Freely interpret.

Apparently they know the truth, the whole truth, and nothin' but the truth. Just ask them, they will tell you.

People tend to dislike Gnostic Christians when they first meet us.

We, like the Gnostic Jesus, think morals should guide religions and not dogma.

Only a few of us can be honest enough to be moralists.

Jesus said many things that had both sides against him, to the point where he had to run away a number of times so as to not be stoned. Not the good stoned BTW.

He/the scribe says things like, the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.

I see him saying the same for religions and gods.

This suits Gnostic Christians because we put man above god, given that we know that they are all man made.

Given that some say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian, because of our superior moral sense, Christians tend to hate us more than atheists do.

Given atheists churches preach our basic lines, I find the atheist attitude quite misguided.

In the better days, atheists and the intelligentsia of religions were forming Mystery Schools.

It took modern days for atheists to get with it, for the protection of their children.

Your post on Gnostic Christianity misses highlighting that we are naturalists and hold no supernatural beliefs.

To do so opens the door to gods over gods to infinity. Too stupid for words that.

Remember when chatting with a Gnostic Christian, that you are dealing with those who think they are in or want to be seen as a part of the intelligentsia. We are careful to only speak of what can be know, with or without Gnosis.

I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental efforts that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.

https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

Further.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."

Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D

Regards
DL
 
[

Viewing material existence as flawed or evil,

Care has to be taken to separate our myths and our beliefs and ideology.

When or if you read the Gnostic literature, you will see how we in fact venerate reality and nature. It is our creator and sustainer.

In a sense, we are students of nature and can find no better god. God defined as the best rules and laws to live by.

Let me speak to the lie of Gnostic Christians hating matter.

I wrote this to refute the false notion that Gnostic Christians do not like matter and reality that the inquisitors propagated to justify their many murders of my religion’s originators. It shows that Christians should actually hate matter and not Gnostic Christians.

The Christian reality.
1 John 2:15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Gen 3; 17 Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.
-----------

The Gnostic Christian reality.
Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all.
[And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

"If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.

If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.

Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.

[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.

But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

As you can see from that quote, if we see God's kingdom all around us and inside of us, we cannot think that the world is anything but evolving perfection. Most just don't see it and live in poverty. Let me try to make you see the world the way I do.

Here is a mind exercise. Tell me what you see when you look around. The best that can possibly be, given our past history, or an ugly and imperfect world?

Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

That means that we live in the best of all possible worlds, because it is the only possible world, given all the conditions at hand and the history that got us here. That is an irrefutable statement given entropy and the anthropic principle.

Regards
DL
 
My partner is a Gnostic Christian, and I attend the mass with him from time to time. It's definitely not the branch of Christianity that I feel closest to, but I do enjoy the ritual, which is very emotionally moving and usually insightful. Tau Rosamonde, our bishop, is one of the smartest individuals I've had the privilege of meeting, which she hides well behind a soft demeanor when not playing her leading role in the service itself. I deeply appreciate the relative gender parity of the Gnostic church, and the multiethnic character of both the aesthetic and conduct of our meetings.

Another loose collection of general ideas, another religious kludge. Believe what you want in a loose framework.
That has not been my experience, at least not of the community I am most personally familiar with. They are open-minded with respect to other traditions, and internally non-dogmatic, but have a very clear mythos/cosmology, and a pretty consistent liturgy as well. It is a mystical tradition and unashamedly so, which I can understand being confusing to people unfamiliar with mystical traditions. But feeling free to ask questions is not necessarily the same thing as having no answers. A shared experience, not a shared text, is the foundation of Gnostic community-building.

On dialectical materialism. This is mentioned in an interview on Tau Rosamonde's website, and I find her perspective somewhat illuminating:

One of the great challenges of being a contemporary Gnostic is that we are still pursued by the ghosts of orthodox heresiologists. Modern Christian theological students are invariably taught—incorrectly—that the hallmark of Gnostic thought and literature is Dualism (because we make a distinction between the ideal world of the Pleroma and the cosmos of the Demiurge). This binary approach permeates Christian culture: God vs. The Devil, orthodoxy vs. heresy, etc. The Gnostic view is vastly more subtle, and therefore easily misinterpreted. To use a pop-culture reference, "The Matrix cannot tell you who you are." The world is not, in and of itself, evil. Flawed, yes—red in tooth and claw and all that. Disease. Hunger. Age. Disaster. But not by its nature evil. Rather than a rejection of the Earth, Gnosticism involves a challenge to and negotiation with the System, or cosmos. A subtle yet critical distinction. Natural allegories, such as storms, the planting of crops, fish, newborn babies and flowers are recurring positive themes in Gnostic literature. Would world-haters employ such symbolism, and so lovingly?

We were indeed taught a very jaundiced narrative concerning Gnostic cosmology, I can confirm, when I was studying at a Lutheran seminary in a past life. Not hostile, but not accurate either, and this overgeneralization concerning the role of the material was one of those things.
 
My pointless endless loop detector is flashing. I have stated my position several times. If my meaning is not clear at this pont there is nothing more for me tosay.

Continue your rationalization by all means.

Here in the USA we have a looming water shortage which will affect the food supply. I doubt mythology is going to be of any practical value.value.

We need pragmatic rational thought which runs counter to myth and theology based systems. I

Secular or theist in the end it is a created in the human mind. Self delusions.

The last word is yours.
 
My pointless endless loop detector is flashing. I have stated my position several times. If my meaning is not clear at this pont there is nothing more for me tosay.

Continue your rationalization by all means.

Here in the USA we have a looming water shortage which will affect the food supply. I doubt mythology is going to be of any practical value.value.

We need pragmatic rational thought which runs counter to myth and theology based systems. I

Secular or theist in the end it is a created in the human mind. Self delusions.

The last word is yours.

I'm curious. Why did you start this thread?
 
My partner is a Gnostic Christian, and I attend the mass with him from time to time. It's definitely not the branch of Christianity that I feel closest to, but I do enjoy the ritual, which is very emotionally moving and usually insightful. Tau Rosamonde, our bishop, is one of the smartest individuals I've had the privilege of meeting, which she hides well behind a soft demeanor when not playing her leading role in the service itself. I deeply appreciate the relative gender parity of the Gnostic church, and the multiethnic character of both the aesthetic and conduct of our meetings.

Another loose collection of general ideas, another religious kludge. Believe what you want in a loose framework.
That has not been my experience, at least not of the community I am most personally familiar with. They are open-minded with respect to other traditions, and internally non-dogmatic, but have a very clear mythos/cosmology, and a pretty consistent liturgy as well. It is a mystical tradition and unashamedly so, which I can understand being confusing to people unfamiliar with mystical traditions. But feeling free to ask questions is not necessarily the same thing as having no answers. A shared experience, not a shared text, is the foundation of Gnostic community-building.

On dialectical materialism. This is mentioned in an interview on Tau Rosamonde's website, and I find her perspective somewhat illuminating:

One of the great challenges of being a contemporary Gnostic is that we are still pursued by the ghosts of orthodox heresiologists. Modern Christian theological students are invariably taught—incorrectly—that the hallmark of Gnostic thought and literature is Dualism (because we make a distinction between the ideal world of the Pleroma and the cosmos of the Demiurge). This binary approach permeates Christian culture: God vs. The Devil, orthodoxy vs. heresy, etc. The Gnostic view is vastly more subtle, and therefore easily misinterpreted. To use a pop-culture reference, "The Matrix cannot tell you who you are." The world is not, in and of itself, evil. Flawed, yes—red in tooth and claw and all that. Disease. Hunger. Age. Disaster. But not by its nature evil. Rather than a rejection of the Earth, Gnosticism involves a challenge to and negotiation with the System, or cosmos. A subtle yet critical distinction. Natural allegories, such as storms, the planting of crops, fish, newborn babies and flowers are recurring positive themes in Gnostic literature. Would world-haters employ such symbolism, and so lovingly?

We were indeed taught a very jaundiced narrative concerning Gnostic cosmology, I can confirm, when I was studying at a Lutheran seminary in a past life. Not hostile, but not accurate either, and this overgeneralization concerning the role of the material was one of those things.

Mythos says heaven and hell are out there.

Gnostic Christians know that they are here, in our minds. Where else can such fictional places exist?

The enlightened know that they and our gods are of our own creation. To think otherwise is foolish.

--------------

Let me speak to the lie of Gnostic Christians hating matter.

I wrote this to refute the false notion that Gnostic Christians do not like matter and reality that the inquisitors propagated to justify their many murders of my religion’s originators. It shows that Christians should actually hate matter and not Gnostic Christians.

The Christian reality.
1 John 2:15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Gen 3; 17 Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.
-----------

The Gnostic Christian reality.
Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all.
[And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

"If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.

If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.

Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.

[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.

But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

As you can see from that quote, if we see God's kingdom all around us and inside of us, we cannot think that the world is anything but evolving perfection. Most just don't see it and live in poverty. Let me try to make you see the world the way I do.

Here is a mind exercise. Tell me what you see when you look around. The best that can possibly be, given our past history, or an ugly and imperfect world?

Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

That means that we live in the best of all possible worlds, because it is the only possible world, given all the conditions at hand and the history that got us here. That is an irrefutable statement given entropy and the anthropic principle.

Regards
DL
 
My pointless endless loop detector is flashing. I have stated my position several times. If my meaning is not clear at this pont there is nothing more for me tosay.

Continue your rationalization by all means.

Here in the USA we have a looming water shortage which will affect the food supply. I doubt mythology is going to be of any practical value.value.

We need pragmatic rational thought which runs counter to myth and theology based systems. I

Secular or theist in the end it is a created in the human mind. Self delusions.

The last word is yours.

I'm curious. Why did you start this thread?

He may have been accepting a challenge to grow his moral thinking.

Thumbs up if so.

Fail to date.

Regards
DL
 
I started this thread in the hope that Gnostic would post his rants and ramblings here instead of derailing oter threads. It didn't work.
 
I started this thread in the hope that Gnostic would post his rants and ramblings here instead of derailing oter threads. It didn't work.

Pick your favorite rant.

Name your moral issue showing the Christian way, if you agree with it, and I will show mine.

May the most moral way win.

Good luck.

Regards
DL
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

Gnosticism (from Ancient Greek: γνωστικός, romanized: gnōstikós, Koine Greek: [ɣnostiˈkos], 'having knowledge') is a collection of religious ideas and systems which originated in the late 1st century CE among Jewish and early Christian sects.[1] These various groups emphasised personal spiritual knowledge (gnosis) over the orthodox teachings, traditions, and authority of the church. Viewing material existence as flawed or evil, Gnostic cosmogony generally presents a distinction between a supreme, hidden God and a malevolent lesser divinity (sometimes associated with the Yahweh of the Old Testament)[2] who is responsible for creating the material universe.[3] Gnostics considered the principal element of salvation to be direct knowledge of the supreme divinity in the form of mystical or esoteric insight. Many Gnostic texts deal not in concepts of sin and repentance, but with illusion and enlightenment.[3]

Gnostic writings flourished among certain Christian groups in the Mediterranean world until about the second century, when the Fathers of the early Church denounced them as heresy.[4] Efforts to destroy these texts proved largely successful, resulting in the survival of very little writing by Gnostic theologians.[3] Nonetheless, early Gnostic teachers such as Valentinus saw their beliefs as aligned with Christianity. In the Gnostic Christian tradition, Christ is seen as a divine being which has taken human form in order to lead humanity back to the Light.[5] However, Gnosticism is not a single standardized system, and the emphasis on direct experience allows for a wide variety of teachings, including distinct currents such as Valentianism and Sethianism. In the Persian Empire, Gnostic ideas spread as far as China via the related movement Manichaeism, while Mandaeism is still alive in Iraq.

For centuries, most scholarly knowledge of Gnosticism was limited to the anti-heretical writings of orthodox Christian figures such as Irenaeus of Lyons and Hippolytus of Rome. There was a renewed interest in Gnosticism after the 1945 discovery of Egypt's Nag Hammadi library, a collection of rare early Christian and Gnostic texts, including the Gospel of Thomas and the Apocryphon of John. A major question in scholarly research is the qualification of Gnosticism as either an interreligious phenomenon or as an independent religion. Scholars have acknowledged the influence of sources such as Hellenistic Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and Platonism, and some have noted possible links to Buddhism and Hinduism, though the evidence of direct influence from the latter sources is inconclusive.[3]
There is our Gnostic Christian in a nutshell, including his using the word evil along with his ideas of the material world and best of all possible worlds, and his reference to light. Jesus as the Gnostic Savior. The claim of moral superiority.

Our Gnostic appears to be a proselyting evangelical Gnostic Christian. An early version of modern evangelicals.

Gnostics sound like Protestants. Christians but guided by their own personal interpretations.
 

Jesus as Gnostic saviour​

Jesus is identified by some Gnostics as an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring gnōsis to the earth,[76][68] while others adamantly denied that the supreme being came in the flesh, claiming Jesus to be merely a human who attained enlightenment through gnosis and taught his disciples to do the same.[77] Among the Mandaeans, Jesus was considered a mšiha kdaba or "false messiah" who perverted the teachings entrusted to him by John the Baptist.[78] Still other traditions identify Mani and Seth, third son of Adam and Eve, as salvific figures.

Moral and ritual practice​

Gnostics tended toward asceticism, especially in their sexual and dietary practice.[58] In other areas of morality, Gnostics were less rigorously ascetic, and took a more moderate approach to correct behaviour. In normative early Christianity the Church administered and prescribed the correct behaviour for Christians, while in Gnosticism it was the internalised motivation that was important. Ritualistic behaviour was not important unless it was based on a personal, internal motivation. Ptolemy's Epistle to Flora describes a general asceticism, based on the moral inclination of the individual.[note 17]

Monad​

Main article: Monad (Gnosticism)
In many Gnostic systems, God is known as the Monad, the One.[note 18] God is the high source of the pleroma, the region of light. The various emanations of God are called æons. According to Hippolytus, this view was inspired by the Pythagoreans, who called the first thing that came into existence the Monad, which begat the dyad, which begat the numbers, which begat the point, begetting lines, etc.

The Sethian cosmogony as most famously contained in the Apocryphon ("Secret book") of John describes an unknown God, very similar to the orthodox apophatic theology, but different from the orthodox teachings that this God is the creator of heaven and earth. Orthodox theologians often attempt to define God through a series of explicit positive statements: he is omniscient, omnipotent, and truly benevolent. The Sethian hidden transcendent God is, by contrast, defined through negative theology: he is immovable, invisible, intangible, ineffable; commonly, "he" is seen as being hermaphroditic, a potent symbol for being, as it were, "all-containing". In the Apocryphon of John, this god is good in that it bestows goodness. After the apophatic statements, the process of the Divine in action is used to describe the effect of such a god.

 
Christians but guided by their own personal interpretations.
That's kind of a funny take-away, given that "gnostic" has an almost opposite literal meaning, but I can see where you would come to that from GCB's postings here.
I am just interpreting from a brief wiki page, I know nothing of Gnostics. They rejected orthodoxy that became the RCC which suppressed all other variations.

I can see where GC on the form refers to mainstream Christians as evil. Perhaps a 2000 year old grudge. All Christian versions appear to have an enemy.
 
I am just interpreting from a brief wiki page, I know nothing of Gnostics. They rejected orthodoxy that became the RCC which suppressed all other variations.
I don't think that is the kind of Gnostic that our friend GCB is, as the source of his faith appears to be a personal spiritual experience (apotheosis) rather than any sort of training or inherited tradition. My partner is actually part of a traditional Gnostic congregation, though, so it is a community I know quite well. Quite different from "mainstream Christianity", though I think it is inaccurate to say that they "rejected orthodoxy", as they certainly consider themselves orthodox. It was the rapidly forming Greco-Latin church complex they rejected and still reject, having their own line of apostolic succession and many disagreements with the Roman/Alexandrian bishoprics. We lack many details of the split, since the initial rift occurred before the legalization of the faith, and we have only very occasional textual references to Gnosticism after that time.
 
Christians but guided by their own personal interpretations.
That's kind of a funny take-away, given that "gnostic" has an almost opposite literal meaning, but I can see where you would come to that from GCB's postings here.
I do not think that is a correct interpretation.

Try ----



If a God cannot be personal, it is garbage.

Regards
DL
 
Perhaps a 2000 year old grudge
??

Are the religious moral misfits still using homophobia and misogyny against innocent victims?

Yes, the religious are.

If you do not have a grudge against them, you are not living the Golden Rule.

Regards
DL
 
I am just interpreting from a brief wiki page, I know nothing of Gnostics. They rejected orthodoxy that became the RCC which suppressed all other variations.
I don't think that is the kind of Gnostic that our friend GCB is, as the source of his faith appears to be a personal spiritual experience (apotheosis) rather than any sort of training or inherited tradition. My partner is actually part of a traditional Gnostic congregation, though, so it is a community I know quite well. Quite different from "mainstream Christianity", though I think it is inaccurate to say that they "rejected orthodoxy", as they certainly consider themselves orthodox. It was the rapidly forming Greco-Latin church complex they rejected and still reject, having their own line of apostolic succession and many disagreements with the Roman/Alexandrian bishoprics. We lack many details of the split, since the initial rift occurred before the legalization of the faith, and we have only very occasional textual references to Gnosticism after that time.
Okay.

Where were Gmostics at the time of the Council Of Nicaea? That will give me a time perspective.

Given a tradition of apostolic sucession, is it analogous to the RCC? What is the structure?
 
I am just interpreting from a brief wiki page, I know nothing of Gnostics. They rejected orthodoxy that became the RCC which suppressed all other variations.
I don't think that is the kind of Gnostic that our friend GCB is, as the source of his faith appears to be a personal spiritual experience (apotheosis) rather than any sort of training or inherited tradition. My partner is actually part of a traditional Gnostic congregation, though, so it is a community I know quite well. Quite different from "mainstream Christianity", though I think it is inaccurate to say that they "rejected orthodoxy", as they certainly consider themselves orthodox. It was the rapidly forming Greco-Latin church complex they rejected and still reject, having their own line of apostolic succession and many disagreements with the Roman/Alexandrian bishoprics. We lack many details of the split, since the initial rift occurred before the legalization of the faith, and we have only very occasional textual references to Gnosticism after that time.
Okay.

Where were Gmostics at the time of the Council Of Nicaea? That will give me a time perspective.

Given a tradition of apostolic sucession, is it analogous to the RCC? What is the structure?
Very much in decline, if they even still existed by that point. Modern Gnostic bishops do usually claim to be in apostolic succession (ie., a chain in which each bishop was initiated by a previous bishop) all the way back to the Apostles Thomas or James of Jerusalem, but scholars are mostly quite skeptical of that claim and believe that the modern movement is more "inspired by" the ancient one than directly connected to it. That said, the modern revival, if that's what it is, is not well-known in terms of its origins, so who knows? The heyday of Gnostic thinking in antiquity was the 2nd century, which is partly why we have such scattered information about the original sects. The "enemy of the day" by the time the Council of Nicaea was meeting, in the 4th century, was Arianism. Structurally, the modern Gnostic church is similar I think to what the RCC would look like... if it were very, very small and had never declared war on femininity. There are only a few dozen bishops at most, and all of them directly lead an urban congregation as their priest as well, much like we know happened in the ancient Roman church under the years of persecution. Women are also ordained if God has elected them, and the sacred name of Sophia (the female counterpart to Christ) is routinely invoked. Indeed until very recently my partner's congregation was led by a woman, the honorable Tau Rosamonde. Unfortunately she died over the holidays last, and her husband has taken the lead for the time. Aside from that, if you've ever been to a Syriac or Coptic service, I would describe their manner of worship as somewhat similar. Very elaborate, theatrical almost. Much emphasis on the sacraments. The Gospel reading is as likely to be from Thomas or Peter as from the big four. They are like Protestants only in the sense of embracing a few liberal values, the offering of the Eucharist directly to the congregation, some innocent delusions about the past, and in having a quite long, familiar homily/sermon in the middle of the service.
 
Back
Top Bottom