Talk:History of Gnosticism

Untitled

It may be noted that several of Plotinus' criticisms of his opponents are as applicable to orthodox Christianity as they are to Gnosticism (Introductory Note to ‘Against the Gnostics’ in Plotinus, Enneads, trans. A.H. Armstrong, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966, 221); for example, several of the ideas criticized by Plotinus may be discerned in the theoretic of Clement of Alexandria (whom, it might be remembered, referred to Christian faith as the pursuit of 'gnosis' in his Stromateis, VII.xli). Previously, this has been taken as a matter of coincidence, inevitable given the close relationship of the traditions in question. Yet with the calling into doubt of the intended recipients of the tractate, and the gradual recognition of the essential fluidity of the boundaries between early orthodoxy and Gnosticism, this too has been brought into question.

NICE out of context and very affective at misleading people.. Why did you not post the sentence in this entry right after this ending? VERY VERY MISLEADING WHY?LoveMonkey 18:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also "As such, a number of scholars, such as Christos Evangeliou" really name me five professor of philosophy that would make the statement you posted. This too inlight of the fact that Christos might no longer agree with the statements he made 22 years ago..LoveMonkey 18:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

started reworking; needs attribution

I've started reworking a lot of the information in this article into a more-readable format; however, my knowledge of the post-Alexander Hellenic period is sketchy at best and I can't personally verify or source any of the information given in the first section, I have a lot of other half-completed projects on wikipedia already that I really should research before I start on this one, and anyway the main text I've read on Gnosticism's history was Couliano's The Tree of Gnosis -- and that was over 5 years ago.

Anyone who can help me out, please message me. --Andymussell 02:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While you're at, can you see about fixing the Gnosticism in Modern Times Link on the right bottom? When you click on it, you are taken to the editing page. I can't figure out how to edit that.

--

This article makes no sense...

I tried to clean up some of the language to clarify or make it more accurate in the sections dealing with Plotinus, etc., I agree it needs sourcing, or maybe some parts should just be removed. I figured try to at least make it more accurate-ish. SquirleyWurley

We need to mention Epiphanius of Salamis as a Heresiological source on the Gnostics Bmorton3 15:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

history of the history of Gnosticism

An article entitled History of Gnosticism should relate the history of Gnosticism. This one relates the history of scholarly understanding of Gnosticism, sort of "the history of the history of Gnosticism." This article should say where G started, why, when, by whom, under what influence, to what development, and to what conclusion. And the lead should summarize this material so that a reader who reads only the lead understands a concise history of gnosticism. See WP:LEAD.

The articles on Gnosticism are, in general, in disarray. Jonathan Tweet 14:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The English used by the contributors of this article is Googlish. And, yes, generally the articles on Gnosticism are a mess, in spite of being very informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.212.182.239 (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above, would it be possible to make this subject easier to read and understand, explaining what 'Gnosticism' was at each period of history. Whilst educated to masters level, this article is heavy going, the subject is of interest, but too complex in expression. However, do keep up the good work. --NicBurnCom (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kodeks IV NagHammadi.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kodeks IV NagHammadi.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 2 October 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

Section Gnosticism in modern times speax rubbish thusly:

Many culturally significant movements and figures have been influenced by Gnosticism, including, for example, Carl Jung, William Blake, Aleister Crowley, and Eric Voegelin.

Jung yes, Blake perhaps, Crowley — nope, Voegelin — nope. Crowley used the term "gnostic" to promote his own sex-magical variant of freemason mysticism, up to and including its Egyptian gods. There's nothing gnostic in Crowley's religion, he was just provocative. Voegelin was a conservative christian anti-nazist and anti-communist who used a flawed definition of "gnosticism" to vilify nazism and communism as "gnostic" (as if that be necessary). He later retracted that definition by himself. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: what about the Gospel of Judas?

213.109.230.96 (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merged into Gnosticism

Per WP:BOLD, I've merged part of this article into Gnosticism, and part of it deleted. The moved part is on the Christian sources on Gnosticism; the deleted part was partly undue, and partly a doublure of what's already in the Gnosticism article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]