I am going to come out of left field here and come at this from an anthropological/historical perspective..
I think the more "Gnostic" movements that influenced Hellenistic Judaism made for some interesting synthesis.

I think Judaism is/was a very community-oriented religion. The basic core is that God created the lower world of physical realm in order for there to be free-willed humans who will communally acknowledge him by practicing various commandments. Some of these were meant for laypeople, some meant for Cohen-priests, and some of these over time shifted from priests to lay-Israelites to make a "guard" against violating the commandments. It was very much about communal practice. One anoints the mundane things by following a particular commandment that raises it a holier level by doing it in a prescribed god-ordained way. One can argue historically, that this kind of strict communitarian version of the religion was created by community-leaders (like Ezra the Scribe) that returned from the Babylonian Exile under the auspices of the Persian Empire, as governors, reforming the previous (probably more Henotheistic) religion into a strict monotheism with an orthodox version of how the history came to be.. This was around the Great Assembly with the last "prophets" of Israel (like Haggai and Malachi).

Hellenism after the time of Alexander and his spreading of Greek-thought brought ideas such as Platonism (and later Neoplatonism), Aristotelianism (and emphasis on "intellect" as mystical), Elysian mysteries, Mithra/Isis mysteries, and Pythagoreans, and many more mystery schools and variations thereof. There was also mystical ideas from Zoroastrians, Babylonian mysteries, and Egyptian mysteries prior to Alexander, so there were other strands as well. These traditions were more of a direct, personal, inner aspiration to commune with a mystical godhead. There were elements of this from the prophetic period of Judaism in the prior generation, but the nature of these schools is lost. Was it more esoteric inward looking meditation or still rather communal? Perhaps there was an inward meditative technique.. Either way, since this prophetic tradition was considered to be no longer legitimate, there was probably an allure of the more inward-looking traditions of the Greeks and Eastern mystery schools. That is where I think Gnosticism came in. It provided Jews living in Hellenistic communities to combine their own traditions with Greek mystery schools, allowing there to be a synthesis. Notice, the Gnostic sects and practices were not usually found in Israel proper, but in the cities around the main Hellenistic centers like Alexandria, Antioch, etc. I don't think historically, the Jesus Movement was associated with these Gnostic sects which rather used the character of Jesus as a vehicle to explore Gnostic thought in general. Rather, the historical Jesus, I would say was probably a sect of Essenic/Ebionite Judaism (much closer to Pharisaic Judaism but with different interpretations of the Mosaic Law, and ideas about the End Times that were more pronounced).

Anyways, there are four basic branches of Gnosticism.. I believe it is the Thomas Tradition (based on The Book of Thomas), Sethian, Hermetic, and Valentinian.. They all have similarities and a lot of variation too.

That's interesting. I've had a similar experience vis-a-vis Gnosticism. Not that there isn't a focus on practical experience in churches I've attended, they certainly advocate Bible reading and prayer, but it's also bracketed by the doctrines of "saved by faith alone" and "original sin" pretty heavily.

I suppose there is a kind of presupposition that, no matter how much you learn in internal inquiry, the foundation and lens through which to sift all those experiences should always be those two doctrines.

I didn't grow up going to church so I have an outsiders view. My wife won't notice it, but the repetition of the two core doctrines, with a health dose of barbs against Catholic and Orthodox theology, has filled a line at least once every 10 minutes of sermon across a dozen plus churches on hundreds of days in my experience. You can be ignorant of theological history, but it will still surround you I guess.

In any case, I don't think you're entirely correct about these being somehow more elitist traditions. The Cathars were beggars and rejected material wealth. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Elitism doesn't necessarily have to do with wealth and worldly power.

For example, in traditionally Buddhists countries, monks are considered the elite, even though they lead materially very simple lives (or at least, they should, on principle).

Gotcha. Yes, there is a sense in which Gnosticism, or at least, some forms can be elitist, since with transmigration you are born into different bodies, and it is the ones with superior intellect that can grasp the Gnosis. Or for some forms of Gnosticism there is a hard line between psychic and pneumatic humans.

I've come to realise that I accept the divinity of Jesus, although I know many don't, and I wouldn't try and persuade anyone. But didn’t Jesus himself say ‘It is not I that is good, but the Father that dwells within me?’ That has many parallels in other faith traditions. It’s ‘the supreme identity’, as Watts put it, that the core of the being is itself the spirit. That is made explicit in Advaita.

they certainly advocate Bible reading and prayer, but it's also bracketed by the doctrines of "saved by faith alone" and "original sin" pretty heavily. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I’ve formed a pretty negative view of Luther and Calvin, and their form of Augustinianism. It practically amounts to fideism. I see it as one of the fundamental factors that gave rise to atheism in the 'secular western' sense.

If you read the early history of the Church, you realise it was actually a riot of competing sects, ideas, and dogmas. People would brawl in the street over ‘the nature of the Son’. The Nicene Council was designed to bring an end to all that by assembling bishops from all over the early Christian world (plus a number of pagan authorities, which is significant) and hammering out the statement of what they all should accept. That’s the Nicene Creed that exists to this day.

I don't think you're entirely correct about these being somehow more elitist traditions. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That was the main complaint against gnosticism - that it was only available for the elite, for the very few who could follow its strictures. Orthodox Christianity was on the other hand open to all - that was what was radical about it, especially in the ancient world.

(2) Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All." — Gospel of Thomas

I think this will be more clear when we read (3)

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you.When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

The Socratic axiom states "Know Thyself". The human organism doesn't have inner unity but is many separate parts. When a person making efforts to know thyself experiences he is many and actually lives in opposition to himself, he becomes troubled. In the process of being troubled he makes the necessary efforts towards inner unity and these efforts produce a quality of consciousness which makes it become possible to become "master of himself." This quality of consciousness attracts an even higher quality of consciousness which strives to support it

A person cannot become master of himself while serving his source rather than his ego without the help of the Holy Spirit. If he insists on trying his ego he will attract a quality of help not intended.

I believe you chronology is a bit off. Kabbalah was developed centuries after the Gnostics — Count Timothy von Icarus

Quite right. I wasn't intending to suggest K was earlier than Gnostics or in fact connected. Nor are the Scientologists :smile: I was just saying that the styles are reminiscent.

The Cathars! I forgot all about them. I still think it is correct to make a connection between the appeal of a secret teaching and a powerless group. It can make them feel special when all manner of shit is raining done on them. In this way, I suspect there is an overlap with conspiracy theories held by community members who feel left out but by 'elites'.

The notion of secret wisdom has always been fascinating too. The Holy Grail is one later symbol of this, but dumbed down as a crass materialist trinket of 'everlasting life.'

In relation to Gnosticism (and yes, it was not monolithic) I was galvanised years back when I read the idea that there was once an additional piller added to the more conventional Christian traditions of Faith and Reason. The third piller of Gnosis (loosely the idea that we are all divine). It sounds as though the early organised church got Faith and Reason together to beat up on Gnosis (in the words of one commentator I read).

But tropes fill the air again - can there be anything more encrusted in clichés than the notion that a venerable early tradition was overtaken by the imperious forces of an organized tradition. The Name of the Rose picks up this theme in medieval times when the church is betraying itself yet again. I won't mention Dan Brown. This theme is on rince and repeat

If we see gnosis as, perhaps, a more venerable answer to faith (no small thing) as a pathway to personal salvation (is that the right word when applied to gnosis?) can anyone tell me what gnosis might look like when applied now to the Christ story - Gnosticism being very much a part of a first century epoch.

For example, in traditionally Buddhists countries, monks are considered the elite, even though they lead materially very simple lives (or at least, they should, on principle). — baker

Absolutely right - this was my point before - recondite knowledge is the poor person's pathway to an elite status. I suspect this is behind the pursuit of much mysticism.

@csalisbury Great thread, I've been meaning to read Thomas for awhile now, and now I have some motivation. Hopefully I'll have some contributions soon.

I've come to realise that I accept the divinity of Jesus, although I know many don't, and I wouldn't try and persuade anyone. — Wayfarer

Nice summary of those early years, W. I think the hallmark fo a secure faith is the lack of proselytizing.

I think the hallmark fo a secure faith is the lack of proselytizing. — Tom Storm

Why??

I have to watch how I come across. I certainly can be detached and analytical just as you say. The problem with forums is the conversation can feel impersonal and veiled and because philosophy and cultural studies can hit controversial subjects, it is often hard to know what tone to strike.

The interesting thing about the opening of Thomas is that it has the familiar tropes of mysticism that frankly seem designed to appeal to personal vanity. Secret knowledge/ key to personal transformation. This is right out of Hermetic wisdom or the Kabbalah. But frankly the same proposition is made in Scientology. Is it the case that secret or hidden teachings are the classic refuge of the dispossessed and marginalized? (think I first read that in Isadore Epstein's Judaism - his take on Kabbalah).

What is appealing about mainstream Christianity is the surface appeal of the myth. Jesus is the least mystical of religious teachers. A key teaching is about loving the poor, the weak, the scorned - so detested by Nietzsche and so many modern sensibilities - is actually a powerful idea with far reaching repercussions. There is no need for secret teaching or initiation. That's refreshing. This to me is where orthodoxy (for want of a better term) has the edge on the more secretive Gnosticism. Making something a secret doesn't mean it is more profound, but it sure seems that way.

Perhaps the Gnostic stuff appeals more to people with hierarchical machinations on their mind. "How can I access the real wisdom and the key to ever lasting life?" (or whatever the reward underpinning the doctrines might be) Is it not interesting that the Gnostic teachings also pivot on an idea that is so prevalent now. That the world is coming unstuck and the truth is hidden by design and that only some with the right mindfulness can access this truth. It makes you wonder if QAnon is today's apocalyptic nascent religious tradition with a baroque line in hidden internet based scripture - waiting to be rediscovered in 2000 years and reinterpreted for the times.

Oops, that was more of a flight of ideas than a coherent view. — Tom Storm

Yep, we both agree that the opening plays with common mystical tropes.

Ok, I think I get where you're coming from. The text itself is an annoying gnat - let's get to the brass tacks - desire for power.

The basic idea, if I understand you, is that the canonical gospels are democratic - Jesus is a radically non-hierarchical guy - and gnosticism wants to think it's tuned in to the real shit. It's more valuable because it's secret. That's how the gnostic thinks. The gnostic sees power in secrecy.

I appreciate your navigating niceties with me but you're still saying the same thing: 'why are you attracted to this? (with the obvious subtext : I know why! you want power (as I did/do) )

Listen, tom, I have all the insecurities you imagine and more. I have a great oodling tower of insecurities. I'm sure you're a much more decorated and successful man than me. I'm not trying to angle at scientology sceptres, faux-sanctity by proxy, or anything else. I like reading the gospel of thomas, along with a lot of other things. Much comes up talking about them, they're fun. It might be hard for such a patently secure person as yourself to understand. But it comes down to:

The text is rich. Talking about it, if you're in the right mindset, can bring you anywhere. Yes, people abuse mysticism for personal gain. It's a good thing to keep in mind. But I think you're - i mean, i don't know what you're doing, but you're not on board with what this is, while posting on it.

Brass tacks: if you're interested in the text, say something about what you think of it.

Otherwise, let's get on with it.

And he said, "Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death." — Gospel of Thomas

That sounds kind of crazy until you compare it to:

Blessed are the meek
For they shall inherit the earth.

How do you inherit the earth? What do you do with it once you've got it?

Brass tacks: if you're interested in the text, say something about what you think of it. — csalisbury

That is what I think of it. Sorry.

I think the hallmark fo a secure faith is the lack of proselytizing.
— Tom Storm
Why?? — baker

A person comfortable in their spirituality (as opposed to their religion) does not need to proselytize or harangue others to prove the strength of their faith.

cheers

(2) Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All." — Gospel of Thomas

I’m nowhere close to being informed on religion, so my thoughts are few, but this reminded me of Socrates’ midwife analogy, where being troubled=labor pains. It makes me think that people of the era in which this is written had a different conception of “knowledge” than we do today. Knowledge itself seems to be divine, mystical, and difficult to obtain. Hence all the literary devices used to describe it. Whereas today obtaining knowledge seems much more straightforward via scientific method, logic, reason, etc. So lacking the ability to apply these methods to knowledge caused them to seek it through other, more spiritual/mystical, means.

I think you're beginning with a false assumption here; "knowledge" as a concept in the 2nd century is not the same concept as "knowledge" in the modern age. It's not that "knowledge" exists ideally, and ancient vs. modern conceptions of that concept are different. They're completely different concepts from the beginning; their goals are completely anathema to each other.

The notion of secret wisdom has always been fascinating too. — Tom Storm

I think there's a genuine sense in which what we are capable of seeing and knowing is deeply conditioned by the kinds of people we are. And the people here (self included) are mainly WEIRD (White, Educated, Industrial, Rich, Democratic.)

There's the famous Huxley saying, 'If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is: Infinite.' But it is a big 'if'.

I have had arguments over the years about whether there is really such a thing as 'higher knowledge'. Mostly that is seen as a preposterous idea - because 'higher' is a value judgement, and value judgements are by definition personal in nature. Which is another way of stating the is/ought dilemma.

Adorno’s account of nihilism rests, in large part, on his understanding of reason and of how modern societies have come to conceive of legitimate knowledge. He argues that morality has fallen victim to the distinction drawn between objective and subjective knowledge [i.e. 'facts' and 'values']. Objective knowledge consists of empirically verifiable ‘facts’ about material phenomena, whereas subjective knowledge consists of all that remains, including such things as evaluative and normative statements about the world. On this view, a statement such as ‘I am sitting at a desk as I write this essay’ is of a different category to the statement ‘abortion is morally wrong’. The first statement is amenable to empirical verification, whereas the latter is an expression of a personal, subjective belief. Adorno argues that moral beliefs and moral reasoning have been confined to the sphere of subjective knowledge. He argues that, under the force of the instrumentalization of reason and positivism, we have come to conceive of the only meaningfully existing entities as empirically verifiable facts: statements on the structure and content of reality. Moral values and beliefs, in contrast, are denied such a status. Morality is thereby conceived of as inherently prejudicial in character so that, for example, there appears to be no way in which one can objectively and rationally resolve disputes between conflicting substantive moral beliefs and values. Under the condition of nihilism one cannot distinguish between more or less valid moral beliefs and values since the criteria allowing for such evaluative distinctions have been excluded from the domain of subjective knowledge.

can anyone tell me what gnosis might look like when applied now to the Christ story - Gnosticism being very much a part of a first century epoch. — Tom Storm

Very much like a 'new religious movements', probably not a well-known one. Maybe something a little like Eckhardt Tolle, or others of that ilk.

The third piller of Gnosis (loosely the idea that we are all divine). It sounds as though the early organised church got Faith and Reason together to beat up on Gnosis (in the words of one commentator I read). — Tom Storm

:up:

Thank you that was interesting and helpful. I haven't explored this material in detail since the late 1980's

At the same time, the question of what immortality (or 'not experiencing death') means is always complicated in esoteric or mystic registers - I get the sense that for these 'mystery' traditions, it's much less 'bodies resurrected on the day of judgment' & more 'you see that life persists despite radical - self/ego-annihilating- transformations.' — csalisbury

I'd be careful to ascribe Buddhist meaning to a 1st or 2nd century Christian text, even if it's non-canonical, "gnostic" one. It would better be understood from its Jewish and Hellenistic roots where salvation is knowledge that frees one from the material world to return to the spiritual source in the heavens. I suppose one could consider that a transformation, but it's more of a freeing the divine spark from its material shell, not so much an ego death.

I don't know that Jews thought of annihilation-transformation of the self, although Judaism, like early Christianity, was quite diverse back then.

In the Gospel of Judas:

Judas said to him, "I know who you are and where you've come from. You've come from the immortal realm of Barbelo, and I'm not worthy to utter the name of the one who's sent you." — https://www.gospels.net/judas

There were these platonic ideas of God emanating beings or spiritual realms with eventually the material world being created by some of the more distantly related and foolish ones. And at least some humans had a divine spark in them. Jesus came to remind them of where they came from. Or something along those lines, although Gospel of Judas was a different text from Thomas.

If one who knows the all still feels a personal deficiency, he is completely deficient.

This sounds like Rumi: Muslim platonism.

It's interesting that among the documents found at Nag Hammadi are portions of treatises attributed to Hermes Trismegistus. That suggests there was a good deal of "mixing" of mystical traditions going on, at least until orthodoxy was relentlessly imposed in the Christian Roman Empire.

A person comfortable in their spirituality (as opposed to their religion) does not need to proselytize or harangue others to prove the strength of their faith. — Tom Storm

People don't necessarily proselytize to "prove the strength of their faith".
Some do it "to share the joy with others".
Some others do it out of a sense of entitlement to do so.
Some do it out of a sense of superiority over others.

In fact, it's what religion/spirituality is all about: a sense of superiority over others, a sense of entitlement over others.
All of one's religious/spiritual knowledge is in vain if one doesn't think it somehow makes him better than other people.

Perhaps one part of the question of what to make of the ruler is in verse 89:

Jesus said: "Why do you wash the outside of the cup? Don't you understand that the one who made the inside also made the outside?" — Miller/Funk Collection

In the other Gospels, the reference to the cup is presented more as a charge of hypocrisy. Such as Luke 11:39:

You Pharisees clean the outside of cups and dishes but inside you are full of greed and evil. Did not the one who made the outside make the inside? Still, donate everything inside to charity, and then you will see how everything will become clean for you. — Miller/Funk Collection

The Thomas version is more of an actual challenge than the judgement meted out in Luke. The Kingdom has a shape where both the outside and the inside are created.

People don't necessarily proselytize to "prove the strength of their faith".
Some do it "to share the joy with others". — baker

Sure. I never said it was the only reason. I simply said not doing so suggested a more secure faith. That has certainly been my experience of Christians. Maybe I should have said It can be the sign of a secure faith. One is not always precise in typing.

People don't necessarily proselytize to "prove the strength of their faith".
Some do it "to share the joy with others".
Some others do it out of a sense of entitlement to do so.
Some do it out of a sense of superiority over others.

In fact, it's what religion/spirituality is all about: a sense of superiority over others, a sense of entitlement over others.
All of one's religious/spiritual knowledge is in vain if one doesn't think it somehow makes him better than other people. — baker

Sounds about right. This can take complicated forms, of course, which look like humility to the unwary. Also seems important that people want to share in that feeling of superiority. It's not much fun to be enlightened or sanctified alone.

I do get @Tom Storm point though. People don't sell drugs. Drugs sell drugs. In other words, the real stuff shouldn't need advertisement. In general good things are difficult and exclusive. What is casting pearls before swine but being suspiciously thirsty?

What is casting pearls before swine but being suspiciously thirsty? — norm

"Casting pearls before swine" -- that's a way to keep up the appearance of one's worthiness and the worthiness of one's ideas. Because if (some) other people are demoted to swine, then one's ideas, however lowly they might be, instantly look more elevated, pearly ...

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

There's a Christian theme about loss and disaster being the path itself, the door. It's as if we have to be broken open, humiliated. Our pride in our knowledge of trivia and mastery of ritual blinds us and binds us. 'Astonishment' is a nice word here. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. There's a vague, dark reading of that that appeals to me.

I've been reading Cioran lately (The Trouble with Being Born), and the intersection of the dark and the light seems important here. If I live in some sense like I'm already dead, if I'm not so pathetically fucking thirsty for the recognition and ultimately envy of others, there's a new kind of life in that, while it lasts. Perhaps one does not taste death because the dying ego is no longer functioning as a center. It's the space between mortals that's interesting. I cough up my boring biographical trash only as a symbol, as a bridge, and not as of inherent interest. 'I' am nothing. 'I' am already dead. 'We' know this and are therefore more alive than ever, infinitely and bottomlessly alive. But we remain mortal and faulty, without a cure for the world beyond a little graffiti that may or may not signify for others and help them get over themselves now and then and feel less alone.



He said to them, "What you are looking forward to has come, but you don't know it." — norm

I relate a lot to this. Being broken open and humiliated sucks - and the natural move is to sweep the thing under the carpet and move on flashing the self you want people to see. I had something like that with this thread. I posted it inebriated, and got defensive talking to Tom, who was introducing valid skepticisms. I woke up feeling like shit. and, knowing I had a scheduled phone call with my sister that afternoon, I turned over, drank some gatorade, and texted her to postpone. i had planned on our conversation involving, in part, my demonstrating that I was on top of stuff. I pushed it back a day. But still, today, I brought it up, sheepishly and that went into a back-and-forth of our embarassing experiences. She said 'oh i get it, you're going for fights, want to puff up your feathers' - the shame of it dissipated when it was just like - yeah this is shit people do.

To cioran, I almost want to say: everyone you know is going through the same stuff. As a literary stylist, you're doing great work; but at the same time, if the content is that you're alone with suffering -- just reach out! In a way, he's doing that, just as you say - he's posting up landmarks for people who are in the same boat he's in. It's nice, when you're smart and alone, to feel that this guy gets it too.

But the idea of being broken up and humiliated in christianity is different in kind. Christ isn't prideful on the cross. It's a really beautiful thing, potentially, if you think of it - a community of sinners witnessing and supporting one another. We all fuck up, and feel bad, and we'll help each other. I worry sometimes, with Cioran, it's about being the exemplary sufferer (witnessed, not witnessing). He's a complicated guy so it's not always that, but there is a throughline that tends that way.

Anyway, no exact moral, but those are my thoughts at the moment.