[Teófilo]

Typos. Blunders. Mine.

[Teófilo]

PING!

[Godzilla]

Good comparison!

[ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton]

Verrrryyyy Interrreeesssttttinnnnnggg.

[kosta50]

Would you mind listing some of the Gnostic sources used for this compilation?

Gnostics were a diverse and rather heterodox group. I think trying to lump them all into one theology is disingenuous. Most of the books the Church disagreed with were destroyed by the Church, so we mostly know what the Church says the Gnostics believed. In other words, we are reading only the case made by the prosecution and not the defense. Pretty one-sided, don't you think?

Gnostics actually pre-date Christianity. Some Gnostic groups were attracted to early Christian proponents, especially to SS. Paul and John, in whom they found many of their own beliefs, because there are aspects in their writings that suggest the line between Gnostic beliefs and early hellenized Christian beliefs were not always clear cut, because Christian theology was not clearly defined for the first 300 years after Christ, especially regarding the nature of God, the concept of Trinity, and Mariology.

We could just as easily collect some of the contemporary saying and writings of various posters on FR, diverse Internet sites identified as Christian, or actual churches in existence today, and make comparable charts that show that an amazing array of what those who who call on Christ as their Savior believe regarding any of these topics, and the spectrum of the list would not be too far from what you posted.

[bronx2]

Yet the question which begs to be asked is why Catholicism/Orthodoxy failed to timely respond to the twentieth century's definitive work on Gnosticism, “The Gnostic Gospels” published in 1979. I read this work by Elaine Pagels and it was an outright attack on the validity of Catholicism/Orthodoxy. She claimed present day Christianity is the fruit of Irenaeus work. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons , had written the definitive work against Gnosticism around 180 A.D.. Pagels alleges Irenaeus wrote his book on Gnosticism to keep “Men” in power to the exclusion of women. Sexual repression was also one of the aims of these early church fathers. In fact notwithstanding its title, Pagel's book the Gnostic Gospels really isn't about the lost Gnostic Gospels. The Gnostic Gospels is a feeble attempt by Pagels to explain which side of Christianity won and why it was victorious. We all know Catholicism was the villain.
At the time of the release of the Gnostic Gospels in 1979, only Joseph Fitzmyer S.J writing in “America” and Phem Perkins in another review offered any meaningful analytical criticism of Pagels “Intellectual Gem”. Fitzmyer really excoriated her book resorting to some name calling which surprised me given his lofty status and the status of the magazine publishing his review.
It took twenty five years before another member of the Society of Jesus finally revealed to the world that Elaine's masterpiece which served as her PHD dissertation at Harvard, was in fact the result of academic fraud since the little dear had manufactured references from Irenaeus to serve her intellectual dishonesty.
Since Pagels was questioning the legitimacy of the institutional church I could never fathom why the church took so long to refute her outrageous allegations or her faulty logic as when she claimed "Winners Write History". So what Elaine, that doesn't make their history inaccurate. In essence I consider her to be a questionable scholar. The fun of reading the Gnostic Gospels is to read Jesus telling Mary Madaline, His wife/girlfriend , oh wait, that is a different comedy. Anyway Jesus tell Mary she has to become like a man to enter heaven. Yet Pagels is telling us Catholicism/Orthodoxy is sexist not the Nasty Gnostics. In addition these Gnostics are very Antisemitic, but Pagels skips over this problem.

[sasportas]

Most of the books the Church disagreed with were destroyed by the Church, so we mostly know what the Church says the Gnostics believed.

This is not true. Anybody can read the Gnostic Nag Hammadi writings, I have the book, “The Nag Hammadi Library” myself, moreover, I haven’t tried, but I suspect it is available on the net somewhere.

I have read them and they are bizarre occult-like drivel.

[FTJM]

Gross misinterpretation of Gnostic views and bad comparison...distorting Gnostic views by lumping in a hodge-podge of others, with no sourcing.

[NYer]

Ping!

[redgolum]

Problem is that there were no “orhtodox” Gnostic's. In that there was no uniformity within the various Christian and non Christian gnostics.

But this is a decent summary of some of the various beliefs.