Talk:Gnosticism

In a supposedly FACTUAL page about Gnostic Christianity, why has it not been mentioned (in ANY way) that Gnostic Christianity was the ORIGINAL Christianity? Nor is it mentioned that the reason most Gnostic information was destroyed (and Gnostic people killed) was because the Literalists didn't want people to know the truth: that THEY were lying! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diablo666Daemon666 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a pseudo-historical fantasy. The vast amount of physical and written evidence we have shows that proto-Gnostic ideas were perpetuated in some minor Jewish sects in the first century. These then mingled with the mystery cults of the Roman Empire, before being introduced into the distinct religion of Christianity in the early second century. Please stop believing everything you see on the internet and read an actual book about the subject. 20thJune (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

"This is a pseudo-historical fantasy." Really? What about the Bible? "Word of God"! Right! Because a bunch of Jews said so? Nothing to do with propaganda? Right! Everything written a few years ago is now suddenly 'Word of God"! The Church is The Champion Of Truth!

Gnosticism and in general thinking therefore science was forbidden by the church. Remember: IT-IS-FLAT! (on the back of four elephants standing on a turtle...) Even Galileo was imprisoned for daring to have a different opinion. Hundreds of millions were thoroughly brainwashed during the centuries. THAT is a historical fact. As everybody with half a brain can see that. Required: observing, thinking.

These are not mentioned because are not allowed to talk about. Or think about. Required: blind faith and believe everything you are told.

"Gnosticism was a mix of Jewish and early Christian religious ideas." EARLY Christian??? HOW early? The 4700 years old word 'US-TAN' means 'Old Teaching'. That long ago Christianity already was old teaching. In Gilgamesh Utnapistim (or whichever distorted modern version you want to use) means:
UTU: time (DSL 381)
NAB: Sun (DSL 129)
US: OLD (L. 69-2) (USAN: before)
TAN: teaching.
Keys:
DSL: Deimel, Anton, Sumerishe Lexicon, Rome.
L: René Labat, Florence Malbran-Labat MANUEL D'ÉPIGRAPHIE AKKADIENNE
followed by the Sumerian cuneiform sign's-number.
"Please stop believing everything you see on the internet and read an actual book about the subject." Sure. These are some REAL books. For you to read and study. Hope you read French. And German. And Greek. Ancient Greek that is. And old Arabic documents are quite reliable too. If you talk about reading books.

What you call Christianity today is technically 'Judaeo-christian'. NOT Christian. Christianity is thousands of years older. Just one aspect to understand: In Judaeo-Christianity Jews are a chose people. In Christianity EVERYBODY ARE EQUAL. Can not possibly reconcile that.
We are ALL Children of God. This is what Kristos supposedly said "I am a child of God". A supernatural being? No. Just said that HE WAS A CHRISTIAN. For clarity: Christian = KRSTN: KUR-US-TAN. KUR (GUR): umschliesen (DSA 42) (KUR and GUR are phonetically the same. But you do know that don't you?) KAR: Einschliessung (DSA 142)
Key:
DSA: Deimel, Anton Sumerish-Akkadishes Glossar, Rome 1934
IE: The 'old teaching of the circle'. In Sumerian the circle was the sign of a deity. Three circles: GOD
(While this is correct 'technically' I am not arguing that you should take up Christianity. Just that this is what Christians think and believe) Rabbi Saul simply included in Judaism that Kristos is the savior as long as you all accept that Jews are the chosen people. Done and dusted, the rest is history. By today everybody are thoroughly brainwashed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This needs to be supported by reliable sources and without any synthesis between statements. For instance, saying that Carpocratians sexually assaulted women would be WP:SYNTH when the source simply says that Carpocrates thought wives should be held in common. We have no ability, with the source presented, to gauge what Carpocratian women thought about that state of affairs. Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

In fact this source pointedly distinguishes Carpocratianism from Gnosticism, saying While some modern scholars have written briefly on Carpocrates or the Carpocratians (about two dozen scholars since George Salmon’s 1877 entry on Carpocrates in the Dictionary of Christian Biography), almost all have allowed the ancient heresiological categories found in Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria to go unchallenged. Other so-called “heresies,” like Marcionism and Gnosticism, have benefited from studies that do not take the heresiologists at face value. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The carpocratians were undoubtably a Gnostic cult, and they are not the only Gnostic cult which were accused of ritual sexual abuse. The ritual sexual abuse of women was commonplace in Gnosticism as is report by Irenaeus in Against Heresies, which I would consider a reliable source as it’s contents have been proven to be true time and time again by archaeological evidence 20thJune (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Then find sources that support those claims. I don't care what you assert to be undoubtable. I care about what WP:RS says. And the sources provided, as mentioned above, contradict those claims. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, Irenaeus died in 202 AD. Both WP:PRIMARY and WP:AGEMATTERS apply here. And I would bet you dollars to donuts that the words "committed ritual sexual abuse" does not appear in any legitimate translation of Irenaeus's book.

Finally the source above explicitly says that we should not treat classical accounts of heresy as reliable. That's what While some modern scholars have written briefly on Carpocrates or the Carpocratians (about two dozen scholars since George Salmon’s 1877 entry on Carpocrates in the Dictionary of Christian Biography), almost all have allowed the ancient heresiological categories found in Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria to go unchallenged. Other so-called “heresies,” like Marcionism and Gnosticism, have benefited from studies that do not take the heresiologists at face value. is actually for in the cited text. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Socrates & Plato quote 'Gnothi seauton'--Apollo (through Seven Sages of Greece); 'gnothi' has same root as 'gnosis', and in Plato's Republic, Socrates & Glacuon discuss noesis ('knowledge', closely-related or same before spelling was standardized early modern age/era?); knowledge is a running theme throughout Plato's dialogues (probably other variant words)... seems likely/clear Apollonianism (and likely all Greco-Roman/Hellenistic & Egyptian rational/philosophy-science-mathematics divinity cults/religions/temples such as Athenism, besides already-mentioned Hermetism) and Socrates & Plato were among first gnostics (non-capitalized/philosophical, not capitalized/religious) if not some their teachers and lineage to Pythagoras (arguably gnostic, though I don't recall what's written he said on that, though mentioned reason ('Consider all things well, let reason, the gift divine, be they highest guide ', 'Reason is immortal, all else mortal') used for knowledge, which Aristotle also founded Western formal logic, so key in philosophical sense). See also Ancient Greece–Ancient India relations for a fair number of influences from India to ancient Greek philosophy-science-mathematics including such [proto-]gnostics and and ones often referenced or having biographies written by modern gnostics--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 08:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

...is there a question or suggestion here? Remsense ‥ 论 08:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not adding a question mark (besides existent in section heading) and take the rest how you will--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 08:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dchmelik: That would be original research. Sources do not generally categorize Greek philosophers as "Gnostics" in the sense of "Gnosticism", which refers to a specific religious movement that arose in a specific time and place, well after ancient Greece. This is not a forum for the discussion of your own idiosyncratic views. Skyerise (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Not my research: my source for gnosis/gnothi relation is WTS Thackara's The Gnosis according to Plato, though I don't know much about source/him. However, he does say Socrates said things (Plato wrote) but turns out either he didn't or it's from obscure translations. I said 'gnostic', not 'Gnostic', as does this article many times, as do gnosis/Gnosticism researchers such as Dr Antoine Faivre (also sometimes says 'gnosticism'). The fact spelling wasn't standardized was known centuries ago (maybe years differ for English, Greek) and this and related Wikipedia articles mention most aforementioned people/characters (especially philosophers) and/or related research ongoing since 1800s (entire sections on that)... if I thought sources don't exist or aren't being worked on, I wouldn't mention it. I suggest indent one level after my original post due to replying to that and not Remsense--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 12:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dchmelik: There is already a section about Platonic influences. Does this add anything that that section doesn't already cover? Oh, and Thackara is a Theosophist, not an academic, so I don't think he should be used as a source here. Unless you are planning on adding a "Theosophical views" section? Skyerise (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Being academic, theosophist aren't mutually exclusive; seems he graduated UCLA Philosophy, and was a dean, and on faculty religious affairs/studies committees, though in mid-to-late 1900s before Internet lists of graduates. Wiktionary shows one the two word's roots is 'reduplicated' from the other's root--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 13:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dchmelik: so does that mean you are proposing to add an Etymology section? Skyerise (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Not particularly/yet, but if someone does, maybe better in Gnosis than Gnosticism? His article/paper was in Sunrise magazine August/September 1986, so most likely learned from printed Greek book/dictionary (more reliable than websites such as Wiktionary, though they cited dictionary). Also, apparently etymology section already exists, and admits 'gnosticism' (unlike 'gnosis', 'gnothi') is a modern term. So are 'rationalism' & 'idealism', but it's standard to say those philosophers are rationalist idealist (except Aristotle was more likely dualist), so I don't know why few say they're gnostic (not necessarily Gnostic, but there might have to be separate description). Modern philosophers describe ancients but we don't know if they'd (dis)agree about any of it or emphasize something else... I guess that's okay as long as there are reliable sources--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 14:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

This article claims, “Gnostic texts do not deal with sin and repentance, but illusion and enlightenment.”

Anyone who has read the Gnostic texts knows this characterization is not accurate. Two examples: The Gospel of Truth and The Exegesis of the Soul. The Exegesis of the Soul is about the soul who “prostitutes” itself and eventually returns to The Father in mystical union. It very strongly emphasizes repentance and moral improvement. Both emphasize sin and repentance. Here are some examples:

Gospel of Truth: “For this turning back is called ‘repentance.’ For this reason, incorruption has breathed. It followed him who has sinned in order that he may find rest. For forgiveness is that which remains for the light in the deficiency, the word of the pleroma.”

Exegesis of the Soul: “When she had given herself to wanton, unfaithful adulterers, so that they might make use of her, then she sighed deeply and repented.”

Furthermore, the Gnostics considered the Gospels and Pauline Epistles to be scripture, as is evidenced by The Gospel of Philip and other Gnostic texts, which frequently refer to them. And the Gospels and Pauline Epistles also emphasize repentance and sin; hence, it is no surprise Gnostic texts make the same references. In fact, even in the Gospel of John and the Pauline Epistles, we find the word “Gnosis” crop up repeatedly, as in John 17:3, which speaks of the “Gnosis of The Father,” and John 17:21–25 clarifies that this is a mystical gnosis.

This “Gnosis of The Father” is constantly referred to in The Gospel of Truth. Therefore, the “Gnosis” being presented in The Gospel of Truth ("The Gnosis Of The Father" that it frequently mentions) and in other Gnostic texts does not differ from what we find in the earlier texts that the Gnostics regarded as scripture, such as the Gospel of John or the Pauline Epistles. ~2026-14112-72 (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

We build Wikipedia off reliable secondary sources rather than personal interpretations of religious primary texts. Do you have any reliable sources that support your interpretation? Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC)