Gnosticism: Esoteric Insight and/or Christian Heresy?

Another thread, perhaps???

 

Not if you are a Platonic idealist. I enjoy the little I've read of the Gnostics. I've read parts of the gospel of doubting Thomas, I believe, and his--and others I've read--emphasize the immediacy of God. I think that's the main reason for their gospels being left out of the bible, they didn't accept the hierarchies of "churchianity."

 

That was one of their pet peeves for sure. Mostly because of the costs I think. The orthodoxy was a harsh task master and many Christians, Gnostic or not, resented keeping a bunch of fat whoring priests in more comfort than they could afford.

Regards
DL

 

I've wondered about some passages in the Gospel of Thomas.

Saying 22:“When you make the two into one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and what is above like what is below, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make a pair of eyes in place of one eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the Kingdom].” What does that mean?

Or Saying 7: Jesus said, “Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man.”

Or Saying 114: Simon Peter said to them, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.” Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.”

So I guess the only reason for excluding this Gospel from the canon was those hierachies and their concerns about "Churchianity" What else could explain the failure of the Church to accept such obviously inspired wisdom?

 

On the face of it, that seems like a very sexist statement. Probably as well that it didn't make it into the Bible. I read somewhere that it's meant to be symbolic - that the male referred to is actually an androgyne. But I have big doubts. There's nothing else in the text to suggest that.
It seems somewhat confused to me. And unacceptable in our day and age.

 

I think in this day and age one can be part of mainstream christianity and still not see gnosticism as heresy.

 

I agree, if we're talking about classical Gnosticism and its modern variants. The egoism and materialism masquerading as Gnosticism is another matter.

 

I would sooner define that as clowning around than a serious form of heresy.