I have much respect for Dr. Maier, so I will write him and ask his opinion about Pagels. Whether I go any further depends on his answer.

At one time one would have to have been a very serious scholar to come close to untangling the role of gnosticism in Christian history. Now we have so much more information than even a century ago, and mostly available on the Internet, that this is quite easy to do for anyone sufficiently interested.

I think you should trust your own judgement.

No offense, but this seems a useless and half-hearted attempt. If you're not interested in continuing, just say so. I can't make anything of this kind of vaguery. If you want to narrow your explanation to one strand associated with Christianity - the most common - then do that.

We are at an impass. I'm not going to agree to this statement, and you haven't told me what you mean by a "Gnostic Christian". Do you not realize that we are using different definitions? Until those definitions are presented, this will go nowhere.

To be honest, I'm not motivated to waste my time. It so happens I spent a week this past summer at a seminar by Dr. Paul Maier (Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan). The subject was the current trend toward rewriting the history of Paul (just as the Jesus Seminar tried to rewrite the history of Jesus). I have much respect for Dr. Maier, so I will write him and ask his opinion about Pagels. Whether I go any further depends on his answer.

Well, John does not portray Thomas negatively, and a poor conclusion based on a poor interpretation doesn't mean much. I realize some of the folklore surrounding the account in John paints Thomas poorly, but the gospel itself does not.

At the end of the story Thomas is reconciled to Jesus, and he declares, "My Lord and my God!" What John does is show that Thomas was human. But he also shows the failings of Peter - and with much more emphasis than the story of Thomas. So was John also trying to discredit Peter? (whose gospel story, according to Eusebius and others, was recorded in the book of Mark).

No, as I said, he is just showing that the disciples were human and imperfect - which is the reason we need a Savior in the first place.

Gnosticism: 1) there is no higher religious authority than the private individual 2) every individual has the "soul sufficiency" to reach religious truth by themselves 3) external objective expressions of religion like churches, worship, or creeds are at best unnecessary but mostly a block to true spirituality 4) true religion does not need any external forms 5) so, no one can tell me what to believe, and anyone who does is potential threat to religious freedom.

Given those aspects of gnosticism, one easily recognizable conflict with Christianity is #2. For example, John 14:6-7, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." One should never isolate a single verse from the Bible, or it can be easily twisted. But I can give you a plethora of quotes along with supporting commentary. The point is, the Bible says: you can't do it alone.

Well, then don't read Pagels if you do not want to. No one is forcing you.

Actually, I'm quite serious. I do not think the term "Gnostic" is very useful. I think it misrepresents the religious traditions labeled as "Gnostic".

A Christian is someone who relies on teaching attributed to Jesus for spiritual guidance.

The problem with this explanation is that no Christian must rely on the Gospel of John

the points you list characterizing gnosticism all have support in the canonical Gospels

It allows the person to pick and choose what they will accept and what they will reject

I accept the entire Bible.

Why is this so hard? Why won't you give me a definition? After all, you say it's easy.

I've run across this attitude before, and I don't agree. The idea that reading Wikipedia or some other half-baked Internet site will bring you to the same level of understanding gained by serious scholars is highly fallacious. I claim no expertise in gnosticism, and view this discussion as amateur to amateur.

Well, there is a gnostic principle right there. I doubt you are as independent in your thoughts as you might claim. Because we are amateurs, we must always depend on the judgements of others.

Have you read any of the gnostic texts in their original language, studied the primary sources of ancient history, traveled to the area where all this history happened to study the culture for yourself? If not, then your "judgements" are filtered by the scholars you read.

So, how balanced is your reading?

If you think I've been tainted by listening to others...

, then I will issue you a challenge. I've checked my local library, and they have several different books by Elaine Pagels. I will read one of her books if you will read a book by her opposition. Further, I will prove to you I've read it by posting a critique in this forum if you agree to post a critique of the opposition in this forum.

We can do this at an elementary level, using Internet commentaries. It's easy to find pro/con gnostic commentary. For example: Spirituality, Against Gnosticism: Why the Gnostic Christians weren't Christians.

As it is, your quotes are meaningless. Take, for example, the first one that speaks against "today's Christians". Isn't that a gross generalization? I mean, surely he must approve of "Gnostic Christians". If so, then what am I to make of this quote?

It further speaks of how "anyone" can be have "this spurious type of belief"? What is that spurious belief? You don't tell me, and, hence, I could turn this quote around. I could say: yes, I agree that you have a spurious belief.

But I've been trying to avoid such disingenuous tactics.

I did not want to misrepresent you, and wanted to give you a chance to explain what gnosticism is and how it reconciled with Christianity. It is clear in my mind what gnosticism is and what Christianity is, but that view obviously differs from yours. So, it is not that I don't know. It is that you won't give me a definition.

Gnosticism: 1) there is no higher religious authority than the private individual 2) every individual has the "soul sufficiency" to reach religious truth by themselves 3) external objective expressions of religion like churches, worship, or creeds are at best unnecessary but mostly a block to true spirituality 4) true religion does not need any external forms 5) so, no one can tell me what to believe, and anyone who does is potential threat to religious freedom.

Given those aspects of gnosticism, one easily recognizable conflict with Christianity is #2. For example, John 14:6-7, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

One should never isolate a single verse from the Bible, or it can be easily twisted. But I can give you a plethora of quotes along with supporting commentary. The point is, the Bible says: you can't do it alone.

Isn't that precisely what the various Christian denominations do though?

I've found that only those who do not understand what they've read in the Bible make such all-encompassing statements.

No rush. I would mention in passing that the gnostics and non-gnostics can agree in their acceptance of the entire Bible and still disagree in how they interpret certain passages.

I agree with Didymos that 'Gnosticism' is an ambiguous term. Basically, it is the view that the true knowledge of 'life, the universe and everything' and salvation is to be attained through gnosis. After that there are many differences between its appearances. If we define gnosticism minimally then I would simply equate gnosticism with mysticism. Christian gnosticism would be merely one of its forms.

As it happens though I have an article published on this topic if you'd like to read it. The idea that gnosticism can be properly understood by reading books is mistaken, but it is not difficult to become a book-expert in this field as so few people bother to study it.

I don't have to go to Scotland to learn to play golf, nor even read a book about it.

Do you think I never read anything unless I already agree with it?

Anyone who claims the gnostics were not Christians is not a scholar.

The definition is in the name. Just look up 'gnosis.'

You don't seem to see that it is not necessary to interpret this passage in the way that you do. I would interpret this as a true statement, and one which accurately expresses the gnostic view ... The Bible does not say (you can't do it alone).

I still do not understand your opposition to gnosticsm. We can argue about history but this is not important. What is your objection to gnosticism in the 21st century?

I don't want to derail this thread from a discussion of Paul, so maybe you want to move to a different thread.

Uhhhhhh, I don't think so because now you're contradicting Didymos. Anyway, moving on ...

First of all, thankyou. Again, it is not that I don't know what "gnostic" means. Rather, the problem is that it means something different to you. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong. We just have different understandings. Therefore, I didn't want to criticize you for something you don't believe.

But I will caution you against turning gnosticism into a "theory of everything (TOE)". IMO, TOE's are meaningless. Here is mine: stuff happens, or maybe not. Such "theories" are of no value, and I don't intend to debate them because they allow the theorist to take whatever position suits them for the moment. They are shifting sand.

I know your intentions were sincere, but I say this because you went from one vague word (gnosticism) to another (mysticism).

"'mysticism' would best be thought of as a constellation of distinctive practices" and "Because of its variable meanings, even in serious treatments, any definition of 'mystical experience' must be at least partly stipulative."

Again, I'm willing to do some reading if you agree to do the same. But I would agree that "book smart" is not the same as experiencing something first hand. So, I accept that I will never fully grasp whatever it is you are calling "gnosticism". That is true of any experience. You will never fully grasp what I call "Christianity" unless you become an ardent believer.

Within the context of your experiences, this is true. But "scripture" is a concept central to Christianity, and, therefore, Christianity cannot be discussed apart from those scriptures. Again, it appears this is something that separates Christianity from gnosticism (unless you can reference a gnostic branch that relies on written texts).

Regardless, the comment was made in light of statements about how the Nag Hammadi library enhances our understanding of the Bible, and how I should make my own judgements. Since I can't read those texts first hand (nor, I assume, can you), we must rely on the interpretations of others. It then becomes a very subjective debate on the reliability of the translators.

Tell me, then, what have you read that disagrees with gnosticism?

I see. So anyone who disagrees with you is not a scholar. And Dr. Maier, who is an expert in ancient history, and who shares my dismissal of gnosticism (yes, he answered my email), is not a scholar. Hmm. That sort of closes the debate, doesn't it?

I'm not denying history. All kinds of heretics have claimed to be Christian.

I don't doubt that some of them were sincere in their disagreements. Everyone makes an occassional mistake, and mistakes can be forgiven. The bedrock tenet of Christianity is accepting Jesus as the Christ. If one does that, God will accept them in spite of their mistakes. But the principles I have listed as associated with gnosticism are not consistent with Christianity (with one possible exception, depending on how you interpret #1).

So, my objection, as I said before, is this: gnosticism says the individual can do it alone, Christianity says they can't.

It is well established that the early Hebrews were believers in a monotheistic, all-powerful divine God who was separate from the world. They would not have accepted any pantheistic ideas that "god is within us" or the panentheistic "god is all things" or whatever modern deviation you would use to interpret the Bible.

Further, it is declared by one of the Hebrew prophets that God said, "I the Lord do not change." (Malachi 3:6). Therefore, it is logical to assume that someone who is consistent with those who wrote these scriptures would continue to hold that view of God.

Do you claim, then, that your interpretation of the verse I quoted from Proverbs is consistent with the earliest Hebrews who wrote the first books of the Bible?

I've enjoyed the discourse between Resha, Whoever and DT, and I'd like to inject a somewhat objective observation. I think, perhaps, you all more or less agree on what Gnosticism is, but, just maybe, you don't quite agree about what Christianity is. This may be why you all are having trouble relating.

If you're asking if I've read any refutation of the gnostic view then no, I've never come across one. Just lots of people who assume it's nonsense. A philosophical case against it has not been made as far as I'm aware.

Please be careful with my words. This is not what I suggested.

If you interpret the scriptures as you do then you are bound to think this. But many people give them a different interpretation. A philosopher needs to be concerned with whether gnosticism is a true of false doctrine. If you intepret them as I do then you are bound to think differently.

I have no idea, but I very much doubt it. Whether Moses and Abraham would have agreed is another matter. I like to think they would have.

The general trend seems to have the western orthodox putting more emphasis on the sacrifice, this being that Christ's most significant legacy to us is the remission of sins through his shed blood and that without that act and the belief in that act as our sole means to salvation we cannot be saved. The eastern view, on the other hand, seems to be that we should abide first and foremost by his teachings, that without this effort on our part there is a certain hypocrisy in claiming salvation and proselytizing the gospel. Although both sides share common ground, and doubtless both interpretations overlap, how they approach the matter seems markedly different.

It is interesting that you ignored my challenge. I said I would read Pagels if you accept my conditions. Of course you don't have to, but at least acknowledge that you're not going to accept my conditions.

This is ludicrous. I'm talking to the wind, then. OK, so you don't like the word "gnostic". Give me a different word of your choosing. Pick one aspect of this unnamed phenomenon that you think is unique and yet can be reconciled to Christianity. I can't discuss something that you won't even name.

This is much better: your definition of "Christian".

Now I can explain where we differ. Don't think that I expect you to accept my definition, or that we'll agree, but it at least gives us the basis for a conversation.

First, I have a general problem with your definition. It allows exactly what I said: Christo-Buddhist-Islam. It allows the person to pick and choose what they will accept and what they will reject - again, a "gnostic" perspective IMO (forgive me for using that horrible word).

I can pick saying #1 of Jesus and saying #2 of Buddha, and make my own religion of it. According to your definition, that makes me both a Christian and a Buddhist. Yet earlier you said they were distinct. How?

So, at a minimum, I would change your definition to: A disciple of x is someone who is devoted to all of x's teachings.

If you want to pick and choose, fine, but don't call yourself a follower of whomever it is you are quoting.

For a Christian in particular, my definition includes much more (And when I say "my" definition, do not presume I stand in a void. I have not found an end to the group of Christians who agree with me.)

This difference in definition could easily lead us to a second impass. You feel free to cherry-pick the Bible, accepting what fits your beliefs and rejecting what does not. I accept the entire Bible. So, if I present a Bible verse against gnosticism, you can wave it away with your magic wand.

The only way we would be able to proceed is if you would accept the following modus operandi. If I present a verse against gnosticism, you would have to say: I understand why, given your definition of Christianity, you would think that excludes gnostics. But, I do not accept that teaching for these reasons: x, y, and z.

By my definition, someone who does not accept the Gospel of John is not a Christian.

I understand the history of the Bible, and the time period over which it was assembled. But your argument that this means Christians do not need the Bible is just silly. It's like saying people who speak English don't need to accept the spellings in the dictionary because English existed before dictionaries. It is possible to learn to spell from sources other than a dictionary, but if what you learn contradicts the dictionary, then you learned incorrectly.

Those Christians who lived before the Bible had the personal witness of the apostles themselves. We no longer have that witness, and must rely on a written record. Of course there remains the possibility for a direct inspiration from God, but God himself has stated that he speaks to us through the Bible. Therefore, any inspiration would need to be consistent with the Bible.

I would be curious to know where your impression comes from, because it is not one I would think exists.

Which supposedly "gnostic" tradition would you prefer to highlight?