Category: Gnosticism

Although, Gnosticism is an orientation towards religion, here we focus on Gnostic Christianity as taught by Paul, John, Thomas, and Valentinus.

Misogyny in the Gospel of Thomas?

Simon Peter said to them, “Mary should leave us, for females are not worthy of life.” Jesus said, “Look, I shall guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter heaven’s kingdom.” (GThom 114).

If you read this with a literal interpretation, you will misinterpret it. This does not mean what it appears to say, as any Gnostic will know. This is a metaphor. A man is a symbol of the educated, a woman is a symbol of the uneducated. It has nothing to do with changing genders. It has to do with the fact that in this historical context, men were given an education and women were not.

Simon Peter, the spokesman for the patriarchy, says that Mary isn’t worthy of spiritual life. Jesus responds by saying, in effect, “I will make her educated. This will make her equal to you men. For every woman who makes herself educated will enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Of course, the education Jesus is talking about is the education of gnosis, the mystical knowledge of God. This education would also include the spiritual illumination of the Holy Spirit. In these times, very few could read and write. Most Christians got their scripture through public reading on Sunday in church.

We know that this passage cannot be taken literally because the Bible is filled with passages where women are filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:17; 21:9). And as Paul said, “there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). If we are all one, then we are all equal, and therefore equally worthy of life.

Unfortunately, most people come to the Bible and think that it is historically accurate and literally true. The truth is that the Bible is the record of peoples encounter with God and is conveyed in the language of myth, metaphor, and parable. Interpret the Bible allegorically unless outside evidence points to a literal meaning.

References

Marvin Meyers, The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: The Revised and Updated Translation of Sacred Gnostic Texts, New York: Harper One, 2007.

Mystic versus Gnostic

A Gnostic Christian approaches Scripture as myths, interprets Scripture allegorically, has mystic secrets reserved for the initiated, aims for salvation through mystical insight (gnosis), is open to new revelations from God, and follow Jesus as the Messiah, God, and Savior.

A Christian Mystic may or may not approach Scripture as myths and interprets Scripture allegorically. They usually do not have mystic secrets reserved for the initiated. The Christian Mystic does not aim for salvation through mystical insight, but seeks salvation through faith. The Christian Mystic also is not open to new revelations from God. But they do follow Jesus the Messiah, God, and Savior.

Mystics tend to follow church Creeds and obey the Church hierarchy. Although there are, of course, exceptions. The problem is the deeper you go into mysticism the closer you get to Gnosticism. And the closer you get to Gnosticism the further you get from the institutional Church.

Spiritually speaking, mystics and gnostics are brothers and sisters. It is an only outward conformity to established norms that they differ considerably. Mystics are occasionally ostracized as heretics, but Gnostics are always. This is because narcissism undermines the institutional church, and it’s authority and control.

I tend to be on the mystic side of the line. Doctrine is not that important to me, it is the experience of God that is central. The Gnostics were the first mystics. The Gnostics fled to the wilderness of the Alexandria desert, where they became known as the Desert Fathers and Mothers. They again appeared as the great mystics in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church.

Defining Gnosticism

Before we talk about Gnosticism, we must define it. But defining Gnosticism has become one of the leading problems in the field. Whole books have been dedicated to the subject (See books by Karen L. King and Michael Allen Williams).

The problem is that Western scholars see religion as something dealing with beliefs. So, naturally, they think that Gnosticism should have something to do with doctrines and beliefs. I think this is a mistake. In fact, I think it is the mistake.

Gnosticism, in my opinion, should refer to the orientation by which groups deal with their religion. Not the content of what they believe, but how they believe. Not concepts in the mind, but practices and actions in dealing with living their religion.

In a recent book of mine, I gave the following definition:

Gnosticism is an orientation towards religion that approaches Scripture as myths, interprets Scripture allegorically, has mysteries (musterion) reserved for the initiated, aims for salvation through mystical insight (gnosis), is open to new revelations from God, and follows a Messiah Savior-God.1

Notice that it is an approach, a method of interpretation, an initiation practice, an aim, an openness, and a following. These are all verbs and deal with actions.

This means that Gnosticism says nothing about beliefs. So Gnosticism, as orientation, must be added to the belief system of the group. Gnostic Christianity, for example, fills in their Gnosticism with the Lord Jesus Christ as their Messiah Savior-God. This is their central guiding myth.

Therefore, there is no such thing as classical Gnosticism. A group is Gnostic or it is not. Gnostic Sethians fill in their Gnosticism with Seth being the Messiah Savior-God. This is their central guiding myth.

Whenever you make beliefs the defining characteristic of Gnosticism, you immediately have to have a hundred qualifications for why this group or that person didn’t believe it. You have to explain how Clement of Alexardria is a Gnostic, as he calls himself, and how the Sethians, Valentinians, Cathars, Manichaens, and Madeans are also Gnostic.

My solution is the only real solution. Otherwise, the category must be dumped. Study each one of these and you will see that all of them share an orientation towards religion, but that they differ widely on what they believe, what Scriptures they hold sacred, and who their Messiah Savior-God is.

What is ironic, is that Ireanius’s intuition that they were all related somehow, was right. But as a Fundamentalist, he couldn’t quite understand how. For him, they were just all heresy. That is because he was living in his own orientation, Fundamentalism.

Reference
1. Jay N. Forrest, The Five Gnostic Sacraments, Albuquerque: Tserrof Books, 2024, 11-12. Note: I changed the original transformation to salvation.

Get the Book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DGL6W8DM/