WAS JESUS A GNOSTIC ?

Was Jesus a Gnostic?

First we must define what a genuine Gnostic is. The word comes from ancient Greek (Gnosis), and means Divine (i.e. Mystical / Spiritual) 'experiential' KNOWLEDGE of God (i.e. the “Supreme Power”, or the “ALL”). Thus a genuine Gnostic is one who has such “first-hand” Divine KNOWLEDGE of God (N.B. NOT mere 'beliefs', traditions, dogmas, and 'theories'!).

The question is: was Jesus, Himself, a Gnostic? If what we are told in the Bible is actually true, then obviously Jesus must have been a Gnostic (i.e. having Divine 'Knowledge' of God), as must all the other great Prophets and Masters of the Hebrew Bible – not to mention the many other great Masters such as Buddha, Krishna, Mohammed, Zoroaster, Nanak, etc. etc. (if their scriptures are also true).

To believe that God would only reveal Himself to one ‘ethnic clan’ (or ‘race’) of people (i.e. the Hebrews / Jews) demonstrates the typical blindness and ignorance of religion! It is claimed that the “Israelites” are the “chosen people of God.” This claim is, indeed, true – but again we have to understand what this name or “title” actually means in the ancient Hebrew. The term ISRAEL comes from three Hebrew roots: ’ish (= a Spiritual 'being' / 'human'); ra’eh (= 'seeing' / 'vision'); and ’el (= 'God' / 'Supreme Spirit'). Thus, when put together, the word (Is-ra-el) means: “Spiritual one(s) who SEE God.” From this explanation it should be quite obvious that the term does not apply to any particular ‘race’ or ‘clan’ of people, but to ALL those who SEE, and thus KNOW God, i.e. all genuine Gnostics / Mystics! So certainly the true ‘Israelites’ (Seers / Gnostics) are indeed the "chosen people of God"!


Peace, Love, & Understanding

Admin wrote:First we must define what a genuine Gnostic is. The word comes from ancient Greek (Gnosis), and means Divine (i.e. Mystical / Spiritual) 'experiential' KNOWLEDGE of God (i.e. the “Supreme Power”, or the “ALL”). Thus a genuine Gnostic is one who has such “first-hand” Divine KNOWLEDGE of God.

By your definition from the above, then I would say "yes".

However, if you look at Jesus from the "canonical gospels" perspective, Jesus's teachings bear very little in resemblance to the "Gnostic character". It really depends on the intepretations of what he says.

Is there any passages from the canonical gospels that you think has gnostic elements in his teaching?

Storyteller wrote:

Admin wrote:First we must define what a genuine Gnostic is. The word comes from ancient Greek (Gnosis), and means Divine (i.e. Mystical / Spiritual) 'experiential' KNOWLEDGE of God (i.e. the “Supreme Power”, or the “ALL”). Thus a genuine Gnostic is one who has such “first-hand” Divine KNOWLEDGE of God.

By your definition from the above, then I would say "yes".

However, if you look at Jesus from the "canonical gospels" perspective, Jesus's teachings bear very little in resemblance to the "Gnostic character". It really depends on the intepretations of what he says.

Is there any passages from the canonical gospels that you think has gnostic elements in his teaching?

The canonical gospels were selected and edited by an orthodoxy which disliked and rejected the idea of Gnosis. Therefore, there are no actual words of Jesus (in the canon) stating the necessity of Knowledge. However, there are some passages remaining in the Hebrew Bible which state the need for the Knowledge of God (Gnosis), e.g. Prov 2:5; Psa 36:10; Isaiah 11:9; & NT: Romans 1:28; & Gal 4:8.

PLU

Admin wrote:Was Jesus a Gnostic?

No... but Paul was.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

En Hakkore wrote:

Admin wrote:Was Jesus a Gnostic?

No... but Paul was.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Would you not agree that, according to the NT, Jesus claimed to know and be 'at one with' (i.e. united, or "AT-ONE-MENT" = atonement) God through his own Spiritual experiences. That is, He went beyond the stage of mere 'belief' to the actual KNOWLEDGE (Gnosis) and Experience of God. To me, this means that He must have been a genuine Gnostic.

As far as Paul is concerned, I personally believe, from the extant texts of his letters, that he was a pseudo-gnostic, and rejected by the original Jerusalem Apostles. For my reasoning, see here: http://gnosis.forumotion.com/christianity-f9/paul-false-apostle-first-christian-1-of-8-t28.htm

PLU

Not only do I think Yeshua was a gnostic, but because he became so enlightened that he tuely was THE gnostic, tho my Sethian and Hermetican brothers would argue that point.(are any here? For that matter, are there any Valentians?)
Actually, even Yeshua's words in the cannonical gospels are VERY gnostic to me, and most can be interpreted gnostically, and DEFINATELY kabbalistically. Most of the Bible that Christ said made little sense to me until I became a gnostic. Once I learned the truth, it became quite clear, tho it was in front of me all along and I could not see it.
And then, if you want the ENTIRE thing Christ said, there is the Gospel of Thomas, who I believed to be the foundation of much of the others, only with obvious pointings to the truth cut out or changed, altered. I used to think this an evil, that everyone can handle 'gnosis,' but I am learning that not everyone can, and they must all strive for the Light in their own way, thru what ever means, the Light must veil itself for those who can't handle it's full intensity...

Admin wrote:Would you not agree that, according to the NT, Jesus claimed to know and be 'at one with' (i.e. united, or "AT-ONE-MENT" = atonement) God through his own Spiritual experiences. That is, He went beyond the stage of mere 'belief' to the actual KNOWLEDGE (Gnosis) and Experience of God. To me, this means that He must have been a genuine Gnostic.

I would concur that the Johannine Gospel was the work of a Gnostic (or at the very least proto-Gnostic) group but, just as the Jesus Seminar concluded, I don't believe a single word attributed to Jesus in that book is authentic... and hence I would reject the notion the book is a genuine portrait of Jesus and that he himself was therefore not a gnostic.

Admin wrote:As far as Paul is concerned, I personally believe, from the extant texts of his letters, that he was a pseudo-gnostic, and rejected by the original Jerusalem Apostles.

I only briefly skimmed the posts you linked to (wow, that was a lot of typing ) but I notice you depend upon a synthesis of Acts and all of the New Testament letters attributed to Paul in reaching your conclusions. I am curious as to whether you have explored the findings of textual criticism as it relates to the Pauline corpus and Acts... ie. that the pastorals (Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy), Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are later forgeries and that only seven letters (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians and Philemon) have been judged genuinely from the hand of the same author using literary analysis and that the book of Acts is a mid to late 2nd century work of little to no historical value... and whether that might change your views about Paul having been a gnostic?

Kind regards,
Jonathan

En Hakkore wrote:

Admin wrote:Would you not agree that, according to the NT, Jesus claimed to know and be 'at one with' (i.e. united, or "AT-ONE-MENT" = atonement) God through his own Spiritual experiences. That is, He went beyond the stage of mere 'belief' to the actual KNOWLEDGE (Gnosis) and Experience of God. To me, this means that He must have been a genuine Gnostic.

I would concur that the Johannine Gospel was the work of a Gnostic (or at the very least proto-Gnostic) group but, just as the Jesus Seminar concluded, I don't believe a single word attributed to Jesus in that book is authentic... and hence I would reject the notion the book is a genuine portrait of Jesus and that he himself was therefore not a gnostic.

So what would you say Jesus was, and what do you believe his mission to have been? Surely all genuine Prophets / Spiritual Teachers need to be 'gnostic' (in the true sense) in order to teach / reveal the experience of the Spirit of God. If they do not actually 'KNOW' (and I mean SPIRITUALLY ~ as 'Gnosis') what they are teaching (i.e. God), then they are no more than the orthodoxy which despises them! Is this how you would evaluate Jesus?

En Hakkore wrote:

Admin wrote:As far as Paul is concerned, I personally believe, from the extant texts of his letters, that he was a pseudo-gnostic, and rejected by the original Jerusalem Apostles.

I only briefly skimmed the posts you linked to (wow, that was a lot of typing ) but I notice you depend upon a synthesis of Acts and all of the New Testament letters attributed to Paul in reaching your conclusions. I am curious as to whether you have explored the findings of textual criticism as it relates to the Pauline corpus and Acts... ie. that the pastorals (Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy), Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are later forgeries and that only seven letters (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians and Philemon) have been judged genuinely from the hand of the same author using literary analysis and that the book of Acts is a mid to late 2nd century work of little to no historical value... and whether that might change your views about Paul having been a gnostic?

Unfortunately, Acts and Paul's letters are the only texts giving any kind of history of the beginnings of Christianity (what might be better called Paulism). In my posts on Paul, you will find approximately 8 quotes from his disputed books (Titus=0; 1Timothy=2; 2Timothy=0; Ephesians=0; Colossians=4; 2Thessolonians=2). However, without using Acts there is not much one can deduce - false or true!

Personally, as I have always said, one does not need any books, historical knowledge or beliefs (whatsoever) in order to find God and experience the Spirit ~ the Light etc. ~ and become truly GNOSTIC. In fact, such religious 'beliefs' can be a real burdon to the WAY.

PLU

Only 2 groups of gnostics claim the works of Paul, and it is argured (among us gnostics) that the Marcionites and Paulicans were NOT gnostic in the strictess sense. In fact, most gnostics do not believe the in ANY validity of the Bible, either.

Why is it you think Paul is gnostic? I know alot of gnostics that can 'heretically' interprete his works, but I can do that with Yeshua better. You can gnostically interprete ANYTHING in the Bible, but that in itself doesn't MAKE it gnostic. The church in its present state is about as Paulican as it gets, and THEY definately aren't gnostic. If Paul was gnostic, then why isn't HIS church that way now? (Cuz they sure aint)

You had said you were affected by some evangelical tract. Did the words of Christ bring about a light experience? I must have misunderstood. My experiences were not linked to ANYTHING, I just had them. THe first one was when I was a witch, but I was not ready for it and it scared the cat-crap outta me. My experince of 'light' and what I consider 'gnosis' was only triggered by my meditation of the Epinoia, and trying to visualize it and I had a light expereince which completely changed my life.

It just seemed that you first contributed your experience to Christ or the christian God, then you discredit them, I am left more than a little confused...

Chukuma wrote:

Admin wrote:Was Jesus a Gnostic?

First we must define what a genuine Gnostic is. The word comes from ancient Greek (Gnosis), and means Divine (i.e. Mystical / Spiritual) 'experiential' KNOWLEDGE of God (i.e. the “Supreme Power”, or the “ALL”). Thus a genuine Gnostic is one who has such “first-hand” Divine KNOWLEDGE of God (N.B. NOT mere 'beliefs', traditions, dogmas, and 'theories'!).

Reply:

I agree.

The question is: was Jesus, Himself, a Gnostic? If what we are told in the Bible is actually true, then obviously Jesus must have been a Gnostic (i.e. having Divine 'Knowledge' of God), as must all the other great Prophets and Masters of the Hebrew Bible – not to mention the many other great Masters such as Buddha, Krishna, Mohammed, Zoroaster, Nanak, etc. etc. (if their scriptures are also true).

Reply:

The Jesus of the gospels is not a "gnostic." He IS gnosis.
He is the mind of the Father. THE hierophant. He is the divine name, I AM (Asar).

This is what I understand the Hebrew name/title YAHWEH to mean (the Divine 'man-God', so to speak), as distinct from ELOHIM which I understand to mean the Supreme Spirit(s) ESSENCE ~ the LIGHT itself.

To believe that God would only reveal Himself to one ‘ethnic clan’ (or ‘race’) of people (i.e. the Hebrews / Jews) demonstrates the typical blindness and ignorance of religion! It is claimed that the “Israelites” are the “chosen people of God.” This claim is, indeed, true – but again we have to understand what this name or “title” actually means in the ancient Hebrew. The term ISRAEL comes from three Hebrew roots: ’ish (= a Spiritual 'being' / 'human'); ra’eh (= 'seeing' / 'vision'); and ’el (= 'God' / 'Supreme Spirit'). Thus, when put together, the word (Is-ra-el) means: “Spiritual one(s) who SEE God.” From this explanation it should be quite obvious that the term does not apply to any particular ‘race’ or ‘clan’ of people, but to ALL those who SEE, and thus KNOW God, i.e. all genuine Gnostics / Mystics! So certainly the true ‘Israelites’ (Seers / Gnostics) are indeed the "chosen people of God"!

Reply:

I also agree that "chosen people" is not reserved for any one particular creed of people.

Chukuma wrote:

This is what I understand the Hebrew name/title YAHWEH to mean (the Divine 'man-God', so to speak), as distinct from ELOHIM which I understand to mean the Supreme Spirit(s) ESSENCE ~ the LIGHT itself.

Reply:

Hey, ABS. If my last post came across as being the "final" say, please know that was not my intent, in the least. I view things slightly different, but I don't believe it would cause any conflict between our dialogue. I agree with you that YHVH is the god- man, but when one states so, I believe this to be Atm/Adam. I also view him as the Hebrew - ehyeh asher ehyeh (i.e. the Kemau - Nuk Pu Nuk) and or Aton/Adon/Asar, the I AM. I see Elohim as being Ntrw. I view both as manifestations of Amn (i.e. the light/life/ the FATHER). Other than that, I believe I understand where you coming from.

No, I did not mean that ~ I was simply agreeing with what you had said, and adding what I believed the two terms (Yahweh & Elohim) to mean.

But I am lost when it comes to your terms: Kemau / Ntrw / Amn ~ what language is this?

PLU

Admin wrote:No, I did not mean that ~ I was simply agreeing with what you had said, and adding what I believed the two terms (Yahweh & Elohim) to mean.

But I am lost when it comes to your terms: Kemau / Ntrw / Amn ~ what language is this?

PLU

Reply:

Hey, ABS. Kemau = Kemet/Kamit/Hamitic..Kmt/Ta-Meri ( i.e. Land of Egypt). The Jewish idea and or concept of Elohim is of Kemetic origin and was referred to as ntrw. Amn is amen. It is likely more recognized by others as the " Aum," uttered during meditation.

Htp (Peace)

This is totally fascinating.
I feel that all names for God are names the son gives the father, and can't be right in itself. I sometimes refer to That Most High as 'my Father' as Yeshua did, or The ONE. But I do not really see it as having gender, so a term which uses gender (such as He, or She, or Father or Mother) I think is where we went wrong to begin with. I understand the use of gender in the Kabbalistic sense (which is how I think Yeshua meant it) but I have trouble myself in how to phrase it without gender.
But to speak of it is to speak of the unspeakable anyway... Innit?