Didymos, your reply is "cute", but not really worth addressing. So, yes, this may be a waste of time. That is not a dodge. If you want me to reply to a specific point of yours, I will.

In looking back through this thread, it seems you spent your time telling me what gnosticism is not. I need a positive definition before we can have much of a discussion (I'm annoyed with myself that I can't remember the word I'm looking for. What is it called when people define something by what it is not?).

You seemed to agree that the 5 points I listed in a previous post were "gnostic". I'll narrow it to 2:

1. Every individual has the ability to reach religious truth by themselves.

2. External expressions of religion like churches, worship, or creeds are unnecessary.

If we're going to discuss this, we'll have to table our disagreement on the definition of "Christian", or we'll go nowhere. I would suggest instead, that we agree on what Biblical texts are "admissible" to this particular discussion (I'm assuming you won't let me use the whole Bible).

Recall the condition and challenge I mentioned - that about mutual respect? You have a long way to go. I'm not perfect, but seriously, fellow, your insistence on disrespect is astonishing.

I'm saying that, aside from being applied to certain faith traditions, gnosticism is essentially meaningless.

Your assumption, like many others you have made during the course of this conversation, is off base. Any text is "admissible" (a word you put in quotations, a word I have not used).

What you have to understand is that while all texts are admissible, none are absolute. Some Christians may not use text A, others might. Both can still be Christian.

Earlier you said that to be a Christian one must accept the Gospel of John. This claim is obviously false as Christianity pre-dates the Gospel of John. Are we ready to admit that false statement?

I think that there seems to be a definite division in Christianity today (and probably it has always been there to one degree or another) over what is most important concerning Christ; whether it be his teachings or his sacrifice. 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.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting Christianity at large and if I am please feel free to correct me. I am making no claims of expertise here, just relating what looks to be a general trend. But this general trend seems to shape the thoughts of many of the Christian posters on this forum, either toward one philosophy or the other.

To insist that "scholar" be defined by the opinions one holds is an attempt to exclude those opinions. I suggest we let the weight of the argument decide the course. If someone takes an indefensible position, they won't last long.

This is just silly. Yeah, if I thought like you, I would make your conclusions. And if you thought like me, you would make my conclusions. Which gets us nowhere.

But I'm not sure it's even worth asking, because now you're going to claim that Abraham was a gnostic. If so, I'm not going any further until you give me your case for such.

I thought I put my point simply. It was that someone who is not disinterested, or does not at least aspire to be so, is not a scholar. I think few scholars would object to this idea.

This was my point. It's no good claiming your view of Christianty is correct because its based on your Church's interpretation of the texts.

I have not found this to be widely agreed upon. Some profess it, but not all, and the degree to which "disinterest" has been held up varies over time. There is no objective measure for defining a "scholar" (or, at least if there is one, I am unaware of it and you can inform me). Rather, scholars seem to have a wide variety of opinion that is heartily debated.

A question that has never come up is whether you consider yourself to be a Christian. I ask for a simple reason. I think whether one considers oneself inside or outside the group being defined bears some weight. I would never presume I could give a definition of Islam that is superior to one a Moslem would give.

... maybe I should turn instead, to this matter of "disinterest". To me this sounds synonomous with "objectivity". If not, please clarify. Regardless, I ask how one adheres to your requirement of "disinterest".

I doubt that many scholars would want to argue that scholarship is consistent with prejudice.

I do consider myself to be a Christian, in aspiration more than in fact I regret to say, but at least insofar as that I believe the teachings of Jesus are true. But you would not consider me a Christian, so you need not defer to my definition ... I'm happy to attempt to meet any objections to gnosticism you might have

So, if you want to discuss one of the two "gnostic" items I listed, I am up for it:
1. Every individual has the ability to reach religious truth by themselves.
2. External expressions of religion like churches, worship, or creeds are unnecessary.

I did get that. Maybe you will think it a poor analogy, but it seems you are saying that "gnostic" is an adjective, not a noun.

I asked you to set that aside. I'm no longer speaking in generalities. I'm speaking of you and me (and whoever else decides to participate in the discussion).

Should I quote a saying of Jesus from Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, I don't want to be distracted by having you claim my quote is not an accepted saying of Jesus. I could show you excerpts of Eusebius that claim the veracity of all 4 gospels. And Eusebius then points back to a chain of church historians who have made the same claims. You could then mention the criticisms of Eusebius, and I could recite the answers to those criticisms, and on it goes. I was simply hoping to shortcut the discussion.

For example, if you do not accept some of the sayings of Jesus from the Gospel of John, I won't use John. But I want to know that up front. This has nothing to do with whether Christians do or do not accept John. I'm asking what texts you accept.

I explained this. The Christianity that pre-dates the written gospel of John had the personal witness of John. Yet even in those early days, since John couldn't be everywhere (or Peter, Paul, James, Polycarp, Irenaeus ...) they began writing letters to each other. It is interesting that many of the early letters addressed those who were straying away from the original gospel message. Anyway, since I can no longer go talk to John in person, his letters is all I have. I don't understand why a Christian would not accept them.

So, I admit no falsity of any kind in my insistence. I simply asked to put it aside. If you don't want to use the Gospel of John in this discussion, I will agree to it.

But I do have the right to express how I define things. And, communities have a right to define the standards of their community. Within the Lutheran Church, accepting the entire Bible is a prerequisite - as it is for a lengthy list of denominations. That you find these communities unnecessary (item #2 in the previous post) in no way invalidates those who decide to join in such a community.

the term [gnosticism] is essentially meaningless.

You are trying to make this a battle between my theology and your theology.

Right. I have not objected to any of this [my mention of Lutheran and other Christian communities].

1. Absolutely not [individuals cannot reach religious truth]. Unless and until God opens my eyes to see something, I will not see it. No effort of my own will accomplish spiritual enlightenment.

However, I don't even remotely believe that I need to read a book, adhere to any tradition, go to any place, talk to or be lead by any man, or get on my knees and beg, in order for it to happen.

My word was "opinion". I think you are unjustified in changing that to "prejudice". Neither I nor any of the scholars I have referenced (to my knowledge) have ever advocated any punitive action against other scholars (or any gnostics for that matter) who hold a different view. I will ask you again: are you saying I have no right to give my definition of a Christian? Do I have no right to debate those (scholars or otherwise) who claim Christianity includes gnosticism?

I doubt you will "meet my objections", but we can continue to discuss the matter.

As an aspiring Christian, is that your singular goal? In other words, is being a "Christian" the only faith you seek, or are you aspiring to other teachings as well?

I ask because you must understand that my definition of "Christian" is a theological one. I would never use it to judge a particular person's situation as you imply. If you take anything I have said to mean I think you're a "bad person" or "damned" or any other such thing, I have tried to explain such is not the case.

I know I am sometimes acerbic, and I need to improve in that area, but I never meant to get personal.

So, if you want to discuss one of the two "gnostic" items I listed, I am up for it:
1. Every individual has the ability to reach religious truth by themselves.
2. External expressions of religion like churches, worship, or creeds are unnecessary.

I would agree with the first part, but not the second. So, let me ask you this: when you say "God", do you mean a divine, sentient being?

You haven't made one yet so I can't tell.

I'm not in search of a faith. I'm after the truth.

I don't know why we keep having these misunderstandings. I don't think you've suggested I'm a bad person or damned. But isn't the Church's view that if I'm not a Christian I will be damned?

The only problem I have is that you seem to read your assumptions into my posts, and perhaps this leads us to argue unnecessarily.

isn't the Church's view that if I'm not a Christian I will be damned?

The word [gnosticism] implies the pursuit of knowledge via gnosis ... It could be defined minimally as applying to those who follow the advice of the Delphic oracle to 'know thyself.'

Yes. I also mean God in the sense of my creator, willfully and intentionally creating. I don't much care for abstract definitions of God, but since being exact is not possible for that which we cannot see or know, the best analogy that I would provide for God is that of an author. God is to the universe as the author is to the book. He is the absolute authority.

Then I think you would agree that God is what he is, whether we believe it or not.

Yes, I would agree to that. The beliefs of a character in the book does not determine the nature of the writer. Rather the writer determines the beliefs of the character.

If God has no interest in us, then it ends there - a blind watchmaker sort of thing. But if he does have an interest in us, would he not tell us so?

Unless you wish to offer something more, this seems a fitting end to that part of the conversation.

No. I thought it would help to establish a standard for the conversation. You seem reluctant to do so.

Really? Why is this any more acceptable to you? Why do you leave me to define "Lutheran", but not "Christian"?