Talk:Gnosticism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

lede

Ian, I've put this back in as the lede since it is what the modern sources used in the article say:

Gnosticism (from gnostikos, "learned", from Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) is a scholarly term grouping Christian and other schools and sects which combined different elements from early Christianity,...

In ictu oculi (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Questions the article perhaps should address

• 1. How many of the "gnostic" groups identified by early sources are not Christian?
• 2. How many of the Nag Hammadi texts are not Christian? Jesus in the Nag Hammadi writings -cf Majella Franzmann p15 footnotes.
• btw footnote 8 seems to bear no resemblence with the sentence before it.In ictu oculi (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This is off the top of my head, I'm about to head out with my mom. I somehow have no more time during the summer than I did in school... :/

1. Manichaeism is now seen as a religion in its own right, and some of the groups rode the line between Jewish and Christian Gnosticism (the Sethians, Ophites, Cainites, etc, appear to have started off as Jewish groups and became Christian ones as far as I've found).

2. Some of them were originally Jewish writings (no mention of Jesus), and there's a few outright pagan works (part of Plato's Republic; the Hermetic works The Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth, The Prayer of Thanksgiving, and Asclepius; and Allogenes really doesn't have any Jewish or Christian elements in it and has been classified as pagan by a couple of authors).

That part by foot note 8 is a holdover from the older lede. Doesn't quite support the "Some consider Gnosticism to be a branch of Christianity," part, but it does support the rest ("Jewish gnosticism unquestionably antedates Christianity.") Ian.thomson (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ian.In ictu oculi (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Semetism and Gnosticism (within intro)

1) Does the opinion of one scholar, apparently, belong in the intro?

2) The quotation of Gershom Scholem's is not properly referenced. What's referenced is material that contains the quote. Where and when did Scholem say this? I'm not familiar with his work. Does he have anything else to say? Does he still hold this view?

3) The referenced material, Understanding Jewish History, goes on to clarify the author's opinion that what "Gnostics" believed was anti-Judaic and not anti-Semetic. Why isn't this mentioned? Why are things worded one way when the referenced material is actual saying something different?

4) The text "Many schools inverted traditional interpretations of the Hebrew Bible," should be referenced. Where does this information come from? "Many"? "Inverted"? As far I've come across, "the Gnostics" really only touch upon the Book of Genesis, and within that, only the primordial history, not the entire Hebrew Bible. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

These are exactly the problems with this article. These problems arise from "modern gnostic-hobbyists" inserting unsourced modern opinions throughout the article. The problem can be fixed by simply getting a few of the latest books by scholars that analyze/publish the original gnostic texts (Nag Hammadi and other), and summarizing their definitions of gnosticism, with references to their works.Jimhoward72 (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. This article greatly suffers from original research, lack of NPOV, poor citations, lack of focus and other issues. I think it'd be worth having an admin lock it so that it can be cleaned up properly. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Question 1-yes but the source is (Steven Bayme) and Gershom Scholem not just Scholem by himself. Wikipedia:Citation overkill says two sources are enough. But here's one from Oxford press.[1]-This one includes Hans Jonas making comments like the gnostic view of Judaism is saturated with "anti-Jewish animus". Hans Jonas is also the source of the Scholem quote. It would be good to know these sources before attempting to marginalized them. Notice the Oxford book used the terms "Many"? "Inverted"? as a book on Anti-semitism. The editor tSR - Nth Man appears to not be assuming good faith. These sources are not me and I would request to editors to knock off the ad hominem and style over substance fallacies and actually adhere to policy.

Question 2

then correct it in conformity to Wikipedia:Citing sources. This is no justification to delete any content.

These comments appear to be accusing contributors of bad faith, and original research.

Question 3.

" The referenced material, Understanding Jewish History, goes on to clarify the author's opinion that what "Gnostics" believed was anti-Judaic and not anti-Semetic. Why isn't this mentioned?"

This comment really appears be POV because this is actually in the article -just not the intro. User:- tSR - Nth Man needs to clarify how using a literal quite from a Hebrew Kabbalist scholar

Question 4 you appear to be posting your opinion on wikipedia that's considered original research. Put in citation tags like policy states and I'll source it, if I can. Thats collaboration.LoveMonkey (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

^{(In response to question 1, now unthreaded per WP:TALK) Ian.thomson (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)}

So why are you going out of your way to ensure these views are prominent in the article, in attempt to make a point? That is exactly what this article looks like - a slanted view that doesn't actually reflect what appears in modern scholarship to summarize the phenomenon of gnosticism. Modern scholarship meaning those scholars which actually analyze/deal with the original gnostic texts in a critical academic way.Jimhoward72 (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are you denying the work of these scholars and their positions that are documented?

As I have somehow made them up and as if the Tempelhofgesellschaft#Tempelhofgesellschaft

Don't validate their point that the gnostic cosmology is used by Anti-Semitic groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveMonkey (talk • contribs)

If a group of anti-Semites are using a school of Gnosticism to frame their hatred, that is unfortunate. Anti-Semitism, and hatred itself, is unfortunate. I am not trying to validate anyone's anti-Semitism. I would just like for this to be a good article. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, why does the opinion of one scholar belong in the intro? A citation still hasn't been provided. In what publication did Jonas quote Scholem? Gager is examining the Judaic origins of gnostic religions. He paraphrases Jonas's opinions that they have an anti-Judaic slant to show that a Judaic origin is unlikely. He does not say that certain gnostic groups were anti-Semetic. Nor does Jonas, according to Gager. Nor does Bayme. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Again thats four scholars Gershom Scholem, Steven Bayme, Hans Jonas and John G. Gager. That's also two different scholars themselves saying that gnosticism is anti-Semitic those being Hans Jonas and Gershom Scholem. Thats three Gershom Scholem, Steven Bayme, Hans Jonas saying that gnosticism is anti-Semitic and or anti-Jewish. As a valid citation I need two sources. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree. That's one scholar saying that Gnostics were anti-Semitic, and only metaphysically so. The rest say that Gnostics disagreed, reinterpreted, or refuted Judaism. Just because Gnostics didn't agree with Judaism, that doesn't mean they were anti-Semitic. They did not hate or incite violence towards Jews, as far as I know. - tSR - Nth Man (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:DUE, the amount of weight given to ideas should reflect the amount of weight given by sources. Enough prominent sources discuss the anti-Semitic interpretations to warrent mention in the article, but most sources do not focus on anti-Semitic elements within Gnosticism, especially more recent sources that have analyzed more recent discoveries. As such, the article should mention them, but that shouldn't be the overarching theme. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright now that is a valid point. However removing from the article in general is not valid. If there is consensus here that it is undue weight being in the intro. I will concede to that point. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The actual contents are present elsewhere in the article. The header "Gnosticism and Anti-semitism" was changed to "Gnosticism and Judaism" to combine that section with the section discussing Gnosticism and Kabbalah. I think it's just prominent enough to warrent the single sentence that's in the intro, but I would like to expand the part about Gnosticism's relation to Judaism to include Hekhalot's influence. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with the recent alterations of the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit of an idle observer on this subject ---- my main concern with this article would be the fantastic connection to Buddhism (!) being challenged ---- Seems to me that the particular discussion of a metaphysical "anti-Semitism" per Christian Wiese The life and thought of Hans Jonas: Jewish dimensions p62 needs to be contextualized in the Judaism and Gnosticism section by the context of starting with the 19th Century view (per Joseph Jacobs and Ludwig Blau etc.) that there was some continuity with mystic pre-Christian Judaism. Though as a main characteristic of the groups Irenaeus and Epiphanius call gnostic seems to be syncretism, is a Jewish part-source surprising? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Do these individuals address Gershom Scholem's statement? If not then we are interpreting and that is not something the Wiki is for. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello LoveMonkey.

Do Joseph Jacobs and Ludwig Blau address Gershom Scholem's statement? No, Gershom Scholem would have been 6 years old when the Jewish Encyclopedia was published. It is not "interpreting" to look at other Jewish sources than Gershom Scholem, and it is not typical in a Wiki lede to focus in on one man's statement like this. There evidently is a case for a subsection on anti-semitic traits in some of the gnostic sects, e.g. Hans Urs von Balthasar - 1983 p99 "Would not this bring us back to Marcion's anti-Semitic gnosticism, in which the God of the Old Testament was an inferior demon?" ....btw I note that the statement in the lead which you guys are discussing about "leading Jewish-Israeli scholar Gershom Scholem (according to Hans Jonas) to call Gnosticism" is not even a ref, it's just hearsay. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Antiestablishmentarianism, and the idea that the individual, not any institution, holds the key to knowledge, is by no means "anti-Semitic". I've removed this ridiculous notion and sad attempt at POV pushing from the lead. I've also restored a previous version of the lead in the process. Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Typo?

In the section: 3rd century gnosticism in India: I see that Σαρμαναίοι is transliterated as Sramanas when possibly it should be Sarmanais (Sarmanai plural). Anyone confirm? Manytexts (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Article still woolly?

I added in image of Irenaeus right under the etymology, as its he who coined this usage. The lede still has in it some material not convincingly sourced in main body. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Currently supposed to be pretending to take notes, but (while dealing with other things) I've been gathering sources for the article discussing the different views on the relationships between Gnosticism, paganism, Neoplatonism, etc:

• What is Gnosticism? By Karen King
• The Gnostic Religion by Hans Jonas
• From Jewish magic to Gnosticism
• The Jewish apocalyptic heritage in early Christianity By James C. VanderKam, William Adler
• Gnosis and hermeticism from antiquity to modern times By R. van den Broek, Wouter J. Hanegraaff
• Neoplatonism and gnosticism By Richard T. Wallis, International Society for Neoplatonic Studies
• Sethian gnosticism and the platonic tradition By John Douglas Turner
• Gnosticism and Christianity in Roman and Coptic Egypt By Birger Albert Pearson

My schedule is shifting, but I may have time to try to get to work on summarizing those texts (haha, good one, life, almost had me fooled!). I won't stop others from doing so, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that perhaps the article should take a stricter structure based on the uncontroverted core information：

• "Gnostic" = the core sects described by Irenaeus as gnostic. At the moment someone looks at the article and can't see "Irenaeus describes 7 (or 9 or 12 or how many?) distinct sects as "gnostic". Later ____ included 2 more, later ____ included another 3, etc...." which is pretty basic information for an article this length to be failing to provide

Then

• possible precedents. (a) Platonic precedents. (b) Jewish (all very subjective, since all Christian sects are syncretic between Jewish / Platonic elements)
• possible links to other groups which were never called gnostic by Irenaeus. Mandaeans for example.
• The fruitcake and fringe corner at the end.

In ictu oculi (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Structure it around the evolution of the term? Also, Mandaiia more or less means "Gnosis," so while Irenaeus doesn't identify the Mandaeans as Gnostic, they do. Perhaps:

• Irenaeus's original use
• Other groups for whom Gnosis was important (e.g. Manichaeism)
• Precedents: Western (Jewish, Neoplatonic) and Eastern (Zurvanist, discussion of possible Buddhist influence)
• Legacy (Mandaeism, potential influence on Cathars and Kabbalah, Gnosticism in Modern Times)
• Fringe
• 'Gnosticism' as a potentially flawed category

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

One detail that caught my eye (or that I missed perhaps): Who was holding this conference in Messina and what gave them the authority to redefine the term? DS Belgium (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... The section should be kept (it is a valid question even though I don't exactly agree with the conclusions.), but it should be a bit reworded to either downplay the conference's "authority," or explain why they should be seen with any authority. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Initiation and secret knowledge

It's been many years since I read anything on Gnosticism, but as I recall a major element described in my references was an emphasis on secret knowledge that is revealed only gradually through initiation. Perhaps this was only in reference to particular sects, but it seemed central to my reading of the subject. The emphasis actually makes sense of the name Gnostic, after all. Gnostics would be those with special knowledge, not shared with outsiders. And it would separate them from contemporary Christians and Jews, who made no effort to keep their own beliefs secret.

So for those who know, is this topic worth more discussion? MarkBul (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"common to" or "common in"?

To say that Gnostic beliefs and practices were common to early Christianity, Hellenistic Judaism, Greco-Roman mystery religions, etc., might be taken to imply that such beliefs were held by most mainstream adherents of those faiths. Would it be more accurate to say that Gnostic beliefs and practices were common in those religious traditions? 206.208.105.129 (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with how commonly these respective adherents held/practiced Gnostic beliefs, though common among or common within might communicate the meaning as intended. —ADavidB 01:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Baroness Warsi Snub for Gnostics

Any links to her views on giving Gnostics a seat at the UK Government table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.224.68 (talk • contribs)

New stuff goes at the bottom. I can find no notable mention of her discussing Gnosticism. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Pre-1966 scholarship needs a flush down the pipe

Hi, we've talked about this before, but haven't been WP:BOLD and done it. The changes I've made to lede should be self-explanatory. But if not here's the explanation: There's too much Bibliobazaar style 1890-1940 material in the article. Interesting as historical curio, but completely irrelevant post Nag Hammadi. The next thing would be to go through tagging what isn't sourced. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Also, I think there is a conspiracy-theory trend which runs through parts of the article, based on pseudo-scholarly world-views as opposed to modern critical scholarship. That's why some of the invalid material keeps showing up - it's adherents keep attempting to introduce it back into the article.Jimhoward72 (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example of the conspiracy-theory trend: Tempelhofgesellschaft. Amazingly, the article is categorized as "gnostic". Throughout Wikipedia, there are a handful of articles of this type.Jimhoward72 (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone undoing everyone else's contributions??

Yesterday, I added a paragraph about Elaine Pagels' contribution to the study of Gnostic Christianity, under the section on Gnostic Christianity...the very next day, someone deleted it, claiming it fell under "undue weight." Elaine Pagels is in fact THE authority on the Gnostic Gospels of Christianity and I added one paragraph that summarized her work...if there is an author that wrote something that contradicts Pagels' research, I don't know who/what that is...I also noticed that there have been numerous undos of other people's contributions...this cannot really be acceptable under Wikipedia, can it? I am a new member and a very occasional contributor, but I am also a professional writer and have a degree in history...this does not seem right to me...it seems that one person or a few people are censoring content on this page. What can be done about this?? Blake'sMistress (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for registering an account, although it isn't required it makes the editing community a better place. I undid your edit, with summary "sorry WP:WEIGHT, belongs in author article" - which I still think. A large unsourced paragraph on an author belongs in the author article. As for "someone" that sounds like "some'one" wheras page edit history shows that several experienced editors have this page on their watchlist and regularly revert unsourced, and particularly IP, contributions. I've sectioned the section on scholarship, if you can add a sourced secondary WP:PSTS reference there please do, it will be welcomed. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand what you're saying: Mention of a published book requires a citation? What would the citation be--it would be a restating of the book's title and author and date, with I guess the name of the publisher added if it wasn't mentioned. The purpose of citations is to give a source for a statement, not to restate the name of a book and its author and date of publication. You seem to be saying citations need their own citations. I guess I can add the publisher but since this book is widely available, was a bestseller and has been republished several times, what would this add? Perhaps instead there should be a link to the Wikipedia page on the book. However, I do not know how to do this.Blake'sMistress (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:CITE is a foundational pillar of this site, and WP:No original research is a site wide policy. Whether Pagels book is important enough to mention should be left to secondary sources to decide, because personal decisions by editors would inevitably result in original research at best, personal feelings more likely, or outright advertising at worst. Whether something exists does not matter, but whether it is discussed in reliable sources unaffiliated with the subject matters. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I just realized there ALREADY IS a citation for the Pagels book on the article page!Blake'sMistress (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Pagels' book IS a secondary source!Blake'sMistress (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Pagels's book is a secondary source on Gnosticism, but a primary source on itself, and not a source for whatever impact it has had on the world or on the study of Gnosticism. To cite facts from it about Gnosticism or prior study of Gnosticism is fine, and that's how Pagels is cited in the article as it is. To cite Pagels's book as a source on itself would be inappropriate original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

♠Blake'sMistress, it appears you've mistaken the aim of the page. Pagels' contributions to the science, cited from her work, belong here. Mention of her work & its influence on the science are about her, & belong on her page.

♠As for "censoring", you're completely wrong. There are guidelines on content & relevance. Adding what you did is akin to adding something about Alec Guinness' childhood in an article about "Star Wars". As a pro, you ought to understand that. And if Ian hadn't rv'd you, I would have, for much the same reason. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Gnostic Precedence

The first paragraph needs checking as it appears to be a complete reversal of the facts. Gnosticism as consistently taught, especially by the church, developed as a second century heresy but recent scolarship, Quispel and Pagels, has reversed that view. The existence of pre-Christian Jewish Gnosticism seems to flatly contradict the view that its a later development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.32.109 (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I also agree that the first paragraph needs to be rewritten. It is not in line with the gnostic core values. Example: sexual abstinence? Wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afsartori (talk • contribs) 20:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

template quote book

What is this source: 2.^ Template:Quote book — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ornowhere (talk • contribs) 22:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Rubbish Article

This reads as if it's been written by somebody attempting to show off how knowledgeable they are, with no intention of conferring that knowledge to others. A Wikipedia article is supposed to introduce a subject to new readers, not intentionally confuse everybody except those who already know what it's about.

Rewrite.--131.111.248.243 (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The articles are intended to both introduce and to give deeper knowledge. If you think the introduction is sarce you are free to contribute with your knowledge to make the article better. That is the good with Wikipedia-we are ALL helping. Adville (talk) 08:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I think his point was he has nothing to contribute and this article did not help him with that. It was a request for a better presentation for an unknowledgeable layperson, perhaps too aggressively worded. Mbarbier (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Tend to agree with this. I don't know what Gnosticism is (hence why I came to the article in the first place) and to be honest, it didn't particularly help me to understand much about it. Sentences such as the one below are needlessly technical:

"Gnosticism was primarily defined in Christian context, e.g., as "the acute Hellenization of Christianity" per Adolf von Harnack (1885), until Moritz Friedländer (1898) advocated Hellenistic Jewish origins, and Wilhelm Bousset (1907) advocated Persian origins."

There's no point in discussing the theory that gnosticism is the "acute Hellenization of Christianity" before people actually know what it is. I doubt half the people reading the article even know what Hellenization means (far less how it relates to gnosticism). It's a common problem with wikipedia articles - people forget that the aim is to communicate knowledge to a general audience, not to demonstrate that you're intelligent. I can understand the original user's frustration, even if it goes a little overboard. Bandanamerchant (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually I agree with this completely, this is a fairly terrible article mostly because of the lead. Explain what gnosticism is, don't assume the reader already knows. ScienceApe (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

ScienceApe, perhaps you should concentrate first on changing the article, then revise the WP:LEAD section to reflect the changes that you have made. Editor2020 (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

To which I'd add, your string of rv's is borderline edit warring, & almost certainly violates 3RR... Not to mention is seems OT & POV to me. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Gnostic rejection of Judaism

I'd rather like to read about 'Gnostic Rejection of Judaism' than about why it isnt the case and why its anti-semitic. The following reads like a 'revision' rather than an explanation. The Gnostic rejection of Judaism has any number of possible explanations, not least because they are two completely different religions!

"Modern research (Cohen 1988) identifies Judaism, rather than Persia, as a major origin of Gnosticism. Many of the Nag Hammadi texts make reference to Judaism, in some cases with a violent rejection of the Jewish God.[82] Gershom Scholem once described Gnosticism as "the Greatest case of metaphysical anti-Semitism". Professor Steven Bayme said gnosticism would be better characterized as anti-Judaism. Recent research into the origins of Gnosticism shows a strong Jewish influence, particularly from Hekhalot literature." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Gnosticism in heterodox Islamic branches

I do not mean to talk about the crucifixion story in the Quran being similar to Gnostic accounts of it. What I would suggest is that perhaps this article ought to include information on heterodox Islamic sects which consider themselves to be Shi'ite but are regarded to be influenced by Gnosticism such as the Alawites and the Alevi. Other religious groups which are even more heterodox and seem to incorporate Gnosticism into their belief systems whilst maintaining their identity as Shi'ite Muslims include the Bektashi the Druze (I am not even sure they regard themselves as Muslim but I may be wrong about that). Indeed all of the Wikipedia accounts for these groups mention "Gnostic" influence. All of these groups are referred to as Batiniyya, a slur of sorts derived from the word Batin which is defined at Wikipedia as basically being an esoteric interpretation of the Quran. If there is such a thing as Esoteric Christianity or Gnostic Christianity which is a category on a Wikipedia article listing all of the known Gnostic Sects, than why should there not be such a phenomenon as Esoteric or Gnostic Islam? Am I bringing this up in the wrong place or do any of the higher up editors feel this topic warrants discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.202.217.170 (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Voluntary poverty and chastity are Gnostic ideas?

Gnostic ideas influenced many ancient religions[2] that teach that gnosis (variously interpreted as knowledge, enlightenment, salvation, emancipation or 'oneness with God') may be reached by practicing philanthropy to the point of personal poverty, sexual abstinence (as far as possible for hearers, completely for initiates) and diligently searching for wisdom by helping others.[3]

This sentence is overly broad to the point of including many saints who were never considered Gnostic. In the early church especially, there were many non-Gnostic Christians who practiced "philanthropy to the point of personal poverty" and "sexual abstinence" with an eye towards their own "salvation" and "oneness with God." By this definition, many of the saints of the early Church could be considered as Gnostics, and yet the early church condemned Gnosticism and upheld these men and women as exemplary. Gablueskies (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Except that the Christian saints weren't engaging in poverty-inducing charity and abstinence for the purpose of gaining Gnosis, they were doing it because they felt it was commanded of them, or because they wanted to imitate Jesus (whose humanity they affirmed); while the Gnostics were doing it because it would bring them Gnosis. For the Gnostics, the charity was the cause, the Gnosis the effect; for the saints, salvation the cause, charity the effect. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is forum-like. The only relevant questions are whether the content is supported by the source provided, and if the source is reliable and reflects the consensus of scholars. Please base the discussion on policies and guidelines, not your opinions. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Celtic Gnosticism

WP:BOLLOCKS, WP:MADEUP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
According to my research, there is a religion founded in A.D. 1000 by a 12-year-old Celtic Christian named Raven Mew Fiona into whom established a pantheon by orders of the Pope to use major biblical characters as if they were deities. When the religion was announced, it was named "Gnosticism" after the philosophy of ancient Greece, and hence its reputation. The article is right about simple living and absistence, but the rest is too much to handle. Let's just say that the Gnosticism I practice is different from the one on this article. I believe in God as Gaia with the New Age movement as a rip-off of Gnosticism and Neopaganism as a parody. You be the judge. RavenMewFiona (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)RavenMewFiona What you believe, think, do or don't like doesn't apply to Wikipedia polices per WP:OR or Original research. If you have a source that is trusted such as Google books by a scholar or educational website, feel free to add such information. Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Common Characteristics and Main Features

Seems to me these sections both cover the same ground. Bacchiad (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Or so I would like to think, anyway. Bacchiad (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Can someone help me with this sentence?

I am having trouble understanding this:

Irenaeus declares in his treatise "Against Heresies" that Gnostic movements subjected all morality to the caprice of the individual, and made any fixed rule of faith impossible, the whim of the individual being a subject that is of concern when discussing heresy and orthodoxy in relation to spiritual mysticism, such as the mysticism of Henry Corbin, Thelema, and even in fiction such as "The Theologians" by Jorge Luis Borges in Labyrinths.

Any help would be appreciated. Bacchiad (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

What's broken in your view? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Grammatically it seems fine, although a bit complex. I do not understand it however. If you do, would you mind paraphrasing in simpler terms. Bacchiad (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that the whole sentance should go. It attempts to link the contempary Ireameus to non contempary people. 20th century cannot be viewed as providing social context to the rise of Gnosticism. Delete this clumsy grafting. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I broke the sentence up into two and made a few minor edits to improve clarity, but agree that the now second sentence is out of place and should be removed, especially since the next sentence is about Irenaeus again. I think there are more problems with this section: Gnosticism#Social context. Only the first paragraph of that section really discusses the social context of Gnosticism. The second paragraph is more just plain history, and the third paragraph lacks focus and cohesion and doesn't seem to discuss social context at all. CorinneSD (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Taking a look at that paragraph...

Prior to the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library, much of what we know today about gnosticism was preserved only in the summaries and assessments of early church fathers. Irenaeus declares in his treatise "Against Heresies"[28] that Gnostic movements subjected all morality to the caprice of the individual and made any fixed rule of faith impossible. The whim of the individual is a subject that is of concern when discussing heresy and orthodoxy in relation to spiritual mysticism, such as the mysticism of Henry Corbin,[29] Thelema, and even in fiction such as "The Theologians" by Jorge Luis Borges in Labyrinths.[30] According to Irenaeus, a certain sect known as the "Cainites" professed to impart a knowledge "greater and more sublime" than the ordinary doctrine of Christians, and believed that Cain derived his power from the superior Godhead.[31] Although a Christian who valued gnosis, Clement of Alexandria, a 2nd-century church father and the first notable member of the Church of Alexandria, raised a criticism against the followers of Basilides and Valentinus in his Stromata: in his view it annulled the efficacy of baptism, in that it held of no value faith, the gift conferred in that sacrament.[32]

The first sentence could probably be expanded into a subsection on sources. The bits from Irenaeus really fit in with the Morality section above. I don't know what to do with the last sentence about Clement. Perhaps also in morality and ritual practice since it discusses baptism? IDK. I'm moving toward Laurel Lodged's position on removing the sentence about Borges, Thelema and Henry Corbin - that's realy making a synthetic claim about primary sources, so it's OR I think. Bacchiad (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The Borges &c bit seems like pseud showing off to me. Rothorpe (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

OR indeed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with above. Only the first sentence is relevant to a "social" paragraph. Delete the Borges bit. Is is worth the effort moving the remaining bits into "Morality"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably not, but I did it already. Borges sentence is gone too. Bacchiad (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm probably a bit late but my attempt at a simple translation is : The 'gnostic' movement allowed the individual to follow their own path and make their own rules so that any 'fixed rule' of faith was impossible - that is: they didn't have to follow an established religious rule or ritual regarding their spiritual practise as would a follower of an institutionalised hierarchical religion. Because 'Gnosticism' is about a direct and personal experience of divinity, fixed rules are difficult to establish. The ordinary doctrine of Christians decreed for example that a baby could be baptised and sanctified, but to the Mystery Schools, baptism occurs at a certain level or point in the individuals understanding so that baptising was purely a superficial ritual. Morality was not high on the 'gnostic' agenda as morality changes according to the dominant laws or normative cultures. Irenaeus opposes this in his treatise 'Against Heresies' Illuminol (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes published mainstream academic sources and does not use original research.

Judging from the rest of the conversation, the issue was not simply what Irenaeus thought about the Gnostics or what they believed, but why it was being mentioned in connection to modern authors (one of them writing admitted fiction). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"Gnostic Cathars" (section "Kabbalah")

What's that? Never ever heard of it. I've heard the RC suggest that Catharism was a recurrence of gnosticism, perhaps a western form of Manichaeanism, but I think it is just confused blame-labeling, and the term "Gnostic Cathars" really needs some 2nd-sourcing, please! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

In 'Gnosis and Hermeticism from Antiquity to Modern Times'., Chapter 7, : The Cathars Medieval Gnostics?., edited by R. van den Broek & Wouter J. Hanegraaff, pp. 88-93 has a strong argument for calling the Cathars Gnostics and their religion a (medieval) form of Gnosticism. Van Den Broek argues that the Interrogato Johannis transmits a genuine Gnostic tradition. He writes on p.93 : "It served to express one of the most characteristic views of Gnosticism, i.e.., that our bad world had been created by an evil demiurge. The Bobomils, and in their wake the Cathars, recognised in this early Gnostic tradition an excellent expression of their own ideas, and therefore, as far as their dualism is concerned, we are entitled to call the Cathars Gnostics and their religion a medieval form of Gnosticism. Illuminol (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

'Gnostics' can't be dead - Reincarnation is part of the process - but the label is misleading.

A point to consider is that 'Gnosticism' is an academic label coined to describe a set of teachings that are of the esoteric Mystery School of thought and there are plenty of 'adepts' alive and continuing their journeys today - albeit in secret and inwardly alone. The Initiates didn't call themselves 'Gnostics' did they? To call oneself a Gnostic is strange actually, anyone who experienced 'The Mysteries' -which are really intense experiences/events, usually beginning spontaneously in childhood, (sometimes of an extremely frightening nature) would be experiencing 'gnosis' which in this sense means to experience knowledge (rather than read about it, seek it by ones own will, or learn through a teacher or group). The student experiences first then researches to learn what the experience and the symbols within it, mean. In this way knowledge comes when the student is ready to know. The other way around would be less convincing for obvious reasons. 'Theosophist' might be more accurate though the student would resist any title at all as it is misleading and a distraction. There is no modern resurgence in Gnosticism because the student has accrued knowledge through lifetimes. It's encoded. There are probably a great number of people who identify as 'Gnostic' and have their own interpretation of it. it doesn't matter if new age hippies adopt a title or concept - they are who they are - but the Mystery student cannot escape what is essentially his/her own truth. It comes and gets you. The alternative becomes meaningless and who wants a meaningless life right? The Mystery Schools however go all the way back to ancient days and the student is supposed to know who they are and which school they are from because of the nature of the symbolism that dominates their experience. A key word to consider is 'Remembrance'.

The whole essence of truth cannot be transmitted from mouth to ear. Nor can any pen describe it, not even that of the recording Angel, unless man finds the answer in the sanctuary of his own heart, in the innermost depths of his divine intuitions. — The Secret Doctrine 2:516

The Secret Doctrine Illuminol (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use original research, does not describe any subjective beliefs as facts (but rather describes noteworthy beliefs in as neutral a manner as possible). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

and I will add, please do not use this page as a forum to discuss your ideas - see WP:NOTFORUM. Jytdog (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

In Islam

Some Islamic sects, such as Druze and Alawites, have gnostic elements. I guess it would warrant a mention? FunkMonk (talk) 05:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

We'd need a source that attempts to connect those groups to Gnosticism. I'm supposed to be packing, but just in a hurried glance I'm only seeing sources that describe them as Gnostic in the same way some modern politicians have been described as Manichaean: sharing characteristics but no connections or identification. Not opposed to inclusion, just noting a potential problem with sourcing. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

A quick Google Books search gave a lot of hits, a few examples:[2][3][4] FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

ancient history - and naming of gnostikoi as an insult created by the christian victors

was once part of the introduction but was shorted out unfortunately .. information should be reincluded ..

Because the textual evidence comes from the first few centuries AD, many scholars have assumed that Gnosticism did not predate this period, but earlier historians of religion saw it as an outgrowth of ancient mystical traditions in Asia, especially Iran. There has been considerable controversy about which groups fit the term "Gnostic." Scholars even dispute whether or not members of these ancient cults described themselves by the term "gnostikoi" at all. The close connection between Gnostics and the Mystery religions of the classical world, attested by ancient sources and affirmed by some scholars such as G. R. S. Mead, suggests that Gnostics would have called themselves telestai, "those who are aimed," consistent with their involvement in the pagan Mysteries. By contrast, they would have been called gnostikoi, meaning "know-it-all," as an insult directed to them by their enemies, the Church fathers such as Tertullian and Irenaeus.

References

Ebricca (talk) 10:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Exploring the Greek Word Root GNOS GNOST Nost

The primary languages that dominated the northern Mediterranean Countries were Latin and Greek. These are ancient languages, but they are not dead by any means. Latin has integrated into the Italian, Spanish and Portuguese, so much so that most words in any one of these three dialects is recognizable to the other two, but the accent and any suffixes are different. Greek is one of the oldest languages in the world. The word root GNOS means "to know" and indeed, is most familiar to lay individuals from the religious aspect. GNOS is used in some of the most common medical terms. In root languages there is vast array of (1) prefixes (found at the front of a term, (2) all word roots which help create a noun, verb, found in word building, (3) a combining form with a vowel at the end, (usually an "o", could be an e, or an i) and(4) suffixes. Prefixes and Suffixes contain at least one word root. Medical Terminology is the language of medicine. We often see our doctors as "all knowing" and we trust them "to know" how our body functions normally DiaGNOSis, diagnoses (more than one)ticincorporated into many but while most people see it as a "religious" term (solely from the self expression), the root GNOS Greek and Latin are used extensively in physician documentation and communication. GNOS is found in DiaGNOSisBold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.176.1.34 (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

N. Kazanas, Advaita and Gnosticism

@James land: after this was added, I've read the article, and added more from the same article. Yet, it dawned on me that Kazanas is a familiair name, and indeed: Nicholas Kazanas, well-known for his fringe Out of India theories and his academical non-credentials. So, I've removed all the info from Kazanas... Sorry. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and his article was cited one time: by himself... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Wikipedia insisted on adding a reference so I pushed it in there. Anyone who has come across Advaita Vedanta would find the parallels between Gnosticism and it striking. I could point to sources of the Katho upanishad, general wikipeda pages of Advaitha for people to grasp the parallels. Would that be allowed? Would this reference be ok -http://www.mast.queensu.ca/~murty/gnostic.pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James land (talk • contribs) 19:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree that the parallels are striking; I've shared the same sentiment with Ms sarah Welch. Yet, we have to provide solid sources when making such comparisons; I've found several articles in which such comparisons were being made, but all concluded that the parallels could be explained by local developments. And no, The Vivevekanda Review probabli is not a solid source in this regard. NB: don't forget that Vedanta, at the time of early Gnosticism (1st/2nd century CE) was not Advaita Vedanta, but Bhedabheda Vedanta. Ans also don't forget that Shankara's Advaita was influenced by Buddhist philosophy, and comes from the 8th century CE. Who's influenced who? That being said, take a look at Hesychasm, and I can't help but thinking "Here's India!" And I aslo remember the stunning parallels between Gnosticism and Buddhism, making me think "So this is were Buddhism came to the west in antiquity!" Nevertheless: solid sources are needed, not our personal theories. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Neoplatonic influences

In the section Gnosticism#Neoplatonic influences we find the following sentence:

• Both Sethian Gnostics and Valentinian Gnostics seem to have been influenced by Plato, Middle Platonism, and Neo-Pythagoreanism academies or schools of thought.

We note three nouns – "Plato", "Middle Platonism", and "Neo-Pythagoreanism" – in a row preceding two nouns/noun phrases: "academies" and "schools of thought". This is not grammatically correct. Either all three nouns ("Plato", "Middle Platonism", and "Neo-Pythatoreanism") or only the third one ("Neo-Pythagoreanism") needs to be changed to an adjective to modify "academies or schools of thought", or the sentence needs to be restructured. If we go with the first option, the question is then whether all three can be considered types of academies of schools of thought and thus adjectives. I believe the adjective form of "Plato" would be "Platonic", but I'm not sure that is the right term ("Platonic...academics or schools of thought"). I'm not sure whether "Middle Platonism" could be changed to "Middle Platonic". I'm also not sure whether "Neo-Pythagoreanism" could be changed to "Neo-Pythagorean". The sentence structure would be:

• Both Sethian Gnostics and Valentinian Gnostics seem to have been influenced by the [Plato, Middle Platonism, and Neo-Pythagoreanism] [←all three changed to adjectives] academies or schools of thought.

Alternatively, it would be grammatically correct to leave "Plato" and "Middle Platonism" as they are and only change "Neo-Pythagoreanism" to an adjective, yielding:

• Both Sethian Gnostics and Valentinian Gnostics seem to have been influenced by Plato, Middle Platonism, and the Neo-Pythagoreanism Neo-Pythagorean academies or schools of thought.

But then "academies or schools of thought" only goes with "Neo-Pythagorean", and I don't know if that would be correct. If "academies or schools of thought" needs to go with all three terms, then they all need to be adjectives, as explained above.

Another solution would be to restructure the sentence. One possibility is:

• Both Sethian Gnostics and Valentinian Gnostics seem to have been influenced by Plato, Middle Platonism, and Neo-Pythagoreanism – all three ancient Greek academies or schools of thought.

Perhaps someone else has another solution.  – Corinne (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Neoplatonic influences 2

In the section Gnosticism#Neoplatonic influences we find the following sentence:

• Both schools attempted "an effort towards conciliation, even affiliation" with late antique philosophy, and were rebuffed by some Neoplatonists, including Plotinus.

I wonder whether "antique" is the right word. According to Wiktionary, "antique" means old, and refers primarily to furniture and other household items. Is there perhaps another term that would be more accurate?  – Corinne (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gnosticism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025053439/http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/20341 to http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/20341
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121211123653/http://jdt.unl.edu/lithist.html to http://jdt.unl.edu/lithist.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Era: AD or CE

Era should be consistent throughout the article: any preference? CE appears to be the most used in the article as it stands. – Modal Jig (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:ERA we should follow the original style, unless there's been an agreement here to change it. The first edit back in 2003 used AD. Nothing shows in the talk archive headings. It shouldn't be necessary to specify the era very often, given the time frame. Many can probably just be removed. Thanks for taking this on. Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd prefer CE, since it's more neutral. AD 'feels' outdated to me, but maybe that's related to me living in Holland, not in an English-speaking country. But I prefer CE because it's more neutral. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I went for AD, but a lot I just removed, as well as fixing a few other things. But one more thing … – Modal Jig (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Centuries: first or 1st, but not First

These should be regularized, which I'm willing to do. Any preference. Either way, the caps have to go. – Modal Jig (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

1st please Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Christian or not Christian

Rabbi Saul's creation is NOT! Christian. This supposed to be common knowledge at least to those who write articles about these issues. Rabbi Saul's creation, that the article refers to as Christian, in best case is Judeo-Christianism. Please correct these where you refer to rabbi Saul's creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

By "Rabbi Saul" do you mean Paul the Apostle? Paul was not a Rabbi as the Rabbinic tradition did not begin until after the destruction of the Second Temple, after Paul's death (see Origins of Rabbinic Judaism). Paul was influential in separating Christianity from Jewish Law (see Split of Christianity and Judaism). As to whether on not Paul's version of Christianity is True Christianity or not, that's a discussion for another article, not appropriate for an article on Gnosticism (see Pauline Christianity, New Perspective on Paul, Paul the Apostle and Judaism, Early Christianity, History of early Christianity, Proto-orthodox Christianity, Christianity in the 1st century, Apostolic Age, Ante-Nicene Period, and other articles discussing the origins of Christianity). - Epinoia (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

edit summary explanation of a recent edit

Deleted a sentence that wrongfully claimed there're 4 rivers in the Quran with the respective reference. Nagel et al makes it clear that he uses a reference from external literature e.g. the hadith literature, in this example he uses Sahih Bukhari Tajrid Sarikh & Futuhul-Ghayb. The Quran doesn't support the notion of 4 rivers, as is clear through the word: anhārun= multiple rivers of water, abundance, honey, milk and khamrin (خَمْرٍ) (أَنْهَارٌ). These are evident in Q108:1, Q47:15.

Was in edit summary space - now here as well... copied JarrahTree 07:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Soon to come ... (Origins)

I plan to edit the first para in the section Origins. It reads as if Gnosticism was a religious denomination, but the scholars disagree: Gnosticism is a modern construct somewhat counterparting a certain subgroup of those in the antiquity that called themselves Gnostics. Modern scholars think there were many Gnostic movements, most of the scholars that they share a common denomination of certain beliefs, a few scholars claim there was nothing such. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

"'Gnostic'" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 'Gnostic'. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Minor Point on Valentinus

The current article reads "Valentinianism was named after its founder Valentinus (c. 100 – 180), who was a candidate for bishop of Rome but started his own group when another was chosen." The source for this latter statement being Adversus Valentinianos 4, the point here being that even in the article for Adversus Valentiniaos itself doubt is drawn as to Tertullian's account (the page here ). I am by no means an expert of these matters, but I have encountered a claim that there is evidence suggesting he remained within the church community until his death (1) and even one that says he likely refused the bishop position yet offers no evidence on this point (2). In any case, it seems unlikely to me that a well respected member of the early church community would have 'started his own group' after being passed over out of sheer envy as per Tertullian's account, and it appears there are at least some academic sources contending this. I would like a second opinion of someone more knowledgeable on these matters before making an edit to reflect this contention. 1. 2. Issekinicho (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Right, but we can only write based on the academic consensus however flawed. Wikipedia is not about "truth", whatever it is. Hoeller might be mentioned as a minority opinion, though. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

So-called 'heretics'

This is a fascinating article. Given that the Catholic Church was a three-century later development by the Roman Empire it is not surprising that earlier Gnosticism is then labelled as heretic. We really have no way of knowing what 'real Christianity' is and it surely must be folly to take the exclusivist stance that there is only one true form of Christianity.

It may very well be that there is no definitive singular 'real church'. The mere fact that there are numerous divisions, splits and schisms compounds any attempt at correct identification. On the other hand they could all be valid, as there is potentially no limit to the multifarious facets of the Supreme Being's personality. Indeed each branch of religion may represent a separate aspect.

The dichotomy of illusion/enlightenment versus sin/repentance aside (as I understand it the main difference between Gnosticism and mainstream Christianity) what can be the harm in extra knowledge as long as there is no hurt or damage? Is the Roman Catholic Church frightened of any differing philosophy that has something exceptional to offer? Because I am not a Roman Catholic I fail to see anything heretical, blasphemous, negative or otherwise derogatory about Gnosticism other than it challenges the RCC's monopoly of God. Perhaps that is where I'm missing the point? Ningnongtwit (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

From a maintream Christian view of point most if not all gnoticism was heretical. The use of label of "heretical" is thus not of exclusive usage of the Catholic Church, but of all churches that descend from mainstream Christianity that rejected gnosticism. You may be interested in this article: Criticism of the Catholic Church, and remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. Dentren | ^Talk 14:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 July 2020 and 14 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ikhan94.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

A lesser god?

Question about a single source designating the deity of an entire religion as being the opposite of divinity: is this really supported? I am not Jewish, but it seems a bit mischievous.

24.215.104.17 (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Judean / Israelite movements

I'm thinking of adding a Judean / Israelite movements section and adding Maghāriya who believed in a demiurgic angel that created the earth and also moving Mandaeism to this section as well since prominent scholars believe the religion is Judean / Israelite instead of Persian in addition to Samaritan Baptist sects. Please share if you have any concerns. Mcvti (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

- Maghāriya may fit better in the Proto-Gnosticism article - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

thanks, that is very helpful! Mcvti (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

added Elkesaites who also originated in the Jordan valley and had a Gnostic leaning Mcvti (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)