Posted on 02/02/2023 9:24:39 AM PST by spirited irish
Occult Gnostic pantheism arose among certain Jews during the Babylonian exile, thus, is grounded in ‘Ageless Wisdom Teachings’ from the time of Babylon. Eventually, Gnostics developed Christian variations and then in the heart of Christendom, another version arose – ‘Liberal Christianity.’ Liberal Christianity took shape among medieval mystics such as Meister Eckhart (1260-1327) and in the forms of Renaissance occult science, occult philosophy such as Kabbalah and the Hermetic tradition; and within occult groups such as the Rosicrucian’s; certain Radical Reformers (i.e., Kaspar von Schwenkfeld) and the ‘death of Christian God’ movement. (1) It took form and quickly became a battering ram against the Bible in 19th century Germany.
(Excerpt) Read more at patriotandliberty.com ...
One of the qualities of gnosticism is that the flesh is evil and as much as possible must be done to not allow fleshly desires guide your heart and mind.
You can see elements of that thinking in Paul. I wouldn’t go so far as to call Paul a Gnostic, but he certainly has leanings.
It’s not clear that the agnostics were more “pagan” than the orthodox Christians who adopted many aspects of neo-Platonism in their theology, as well as the Roman mid-winter and spring festivals and customs.
Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the profane chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (γνώσεως gnōseōs)"
there they go again, attacking the, imo, humble and intelligent monk, Eckert, again. i think the Church hated him most because he claimed an unconventional, personal relationship with the Lord, and he had the temerity to write about it in reasoned, idiosyncratic (relative to the Roman Church dogma) and convincing ways about it. makes me think of criticism i’ve seen about Jefferson and his so called ‘bible’ on this site. maybe him and Jefferson made common cause in Heaven. i hope so.
i’ll have to reread him someday to maybe see what all the hate is about.
I say an evidence of Gnosticism in the church is evidenced by the zoom equivalency.
Disembodied unaccountable unrelateable video check ins. That is not the public worship and that is not church.
Same with “I watch the tv pastor.”
Some of us really can’t leave the bed or are in prison etc. Were that my case sure I would stream but that is because I had no other choice. I would not consider myself to have been at church.
The Church has nothing against Eckart and in fact holds him up as good example of medieval mysticism. His sermons are easily misunderstood, however, and those that criticize him have not read him carefully. The Catholic Encyclopedia (hosted by Catholic Answers) has a rather positive article about him:
really. wasn’t he tried as a heretic by the Church?
In general, the legitimacy of Paul's letters and ministry derive from knowledge gained on the road to Damascus. I believe this is why he was the cornerstone for so many early Christian movements, both Gnostic and heterodox that were so vilified by early Orthodox (proto Catholic) Church fathers. Valentinians and Marcionites to name just two.
Specifically, he is skeptical of some worldly pursuits that modern Christianity now considers sacramental. I find it ironic that few Christian weddings these days are complete without a reading from Paul. But Paul, while not anti marriage per se, does not consider marriage optimal for many believers. What we call traditional marriage today, Paul felt to be best suited for the high libido, weaker willed set. Better than fornication to be sure, but inferior to the celibacy that Paul himself practiced. Not really a ringing endorsement of the institution.
The link is An excellent write up against Gnosticism, having infiltrated both Judaism and Christianity.
We wouldn’t know about Gnosticism if it wasn’t for the ECF writer Irenaeus, who wrote prolifically against it. In his writings he brings out the belief of the Gnostics that the true God is not the God the Father of the Bible, the Creator. The true God according to them is another god above the God of the Bible.
Christians are thus deceived in believing in God the Father the Creator and Father of the Son, according to them. Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh, according to them. The apostle John warned us of Gnosticism, he said it is the spirit of antichrist:
“Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God.
And every spirit that confeseth not that Jesus Christ is copme in the flesh is not of God, and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come.” 1 John 4:2,3.
So, I'm not really familiar with the historic Gnostic movement, nor their claims.By far the most heretical and destructive incursion into divine truth was the Gnostic assertion of the immanence of God at the expense of His transcendence (separateness from His creation) so that the personal Creator becomes a pantheistic impersonal expression of an evolving cosmic process.
I tried to look up the meaning of the "immanence of God" and found several writeups that all looked pretty much like this:
What does the Bible say about immanence? Understanding God’s Immanence. In Ephesians 4:6, the Apostle Paul writes that God is over all, through all, and in all. He adds in Colossians 1:17 that God is likewise before all things, holding all things together. This is God’s immanence, his omnipresent existence among all things, including time and space.So isn't this idea, that God is "immanent" - that is in all things - a fairly standard belief among Christians? I've certainly heard many Christians I know say things like that. Are then indulging in a heresy?
In your article it is contrasted with God being "Transcendent". So, I looked that up too:
To transcend means “to exist above and independent from; to rise above, surpass, succeed.” By this definition, God is the only truly transcendent Being. The “LORD God Almighty” (in Hebrew, El Shaddai) created all things on the earth, beneath the earth and in the heavens above, yet He exists above and independent from them. All things are upheld by His mighty power (Hebrews 1:3), yet He is upheld by Himself alone. The whole universe exists in Him and for Him that He may receive glory, honor and praise.
So this idea makes sense. In this view God created everything, but is still above his creation. So God isn't in everything, he's above everything. If I create a pot from clay I'm not present in the pot, it's merely my creation. I can do what I like with it, but I'm not it.
The article uses the term "impersonal" in relations to the Immanent God view - if God is in everything, than he's not really out there as an individual. This sort of conception of God seems somewhat Hindu to me, and they use the term "Godhead" to describe the "God in everything" that is different from any particular manifestation of God (which as pantheists, they have many of).
I'm sincerely trying to understand this article, along with the term "Gnosticism" which I have heard many times, but really don't have a clear understanding of. I went to look that up too, at Dictionary.com and got this:
Gnosticism
[ nos-tuh-siz-uhm ]
nounChristianity.
a group of ancient heresies, stressing escape from this world through the acquisition of esoteric knowledge.
a religious movement characterized by a belief in gnosis, through which the spiritual element in man could be released from its bondage in matter: regarded as a heresy by the Christian Church
So, if I'm understanding the article's point: the main problem with the Gnostics was their belief that God was in Everything (and therefore somewhat undifferentiated from his creation) rather than the belief that God is a singular being above his creation.
Do you agree with the results of my investigations here, or have I missed something?
No.
(the third heaven).I've never heard of that before? What is meant by that? What are 1st and 2nd heaven?
Thank you very much!
well sir. not withstanding my own reading in which Eckert spends a lot of print defending himself. there is this on wiki after the quickest search of the internet.
“The Dominican General Chapter held in Venice in the spring of 1325 had spoken out against “friars in Teutonia who say things in their sermons that can easily lead simple and uneducated people into error”.[19] This concern (or perhaps concerns held by the archbishop of Cologne, Henry of Virneburg) may have been why Nicholas of Strasbourg, to whom the Pope had given the temporary charge of the Dominican convents in Germany in 1325, conducted an investigation into Eckhart’s orthodoxy. Nicholas presented a list of suspect passages from the Book of Consolation to Eckhart, who responded sometime between August 1325 and January 1326 with the treatise Requisitus, now lost, which convinced his immediate superiors of his orthodoxy.[19] Despite this assurance, however, the archbishop in 1326 ordered an inquisitorial trial.[18][20] At this point Eckhart issued a Vindicatory Document, providing chapter and verse of what he had been taught.[21]”
As we know, Wiki isn’t always the best place to get accurate information, especially regarding the labyrinthine workings of Church procedures. Other sources (such as the one I cited above) do not refer to a trial (let alone an “inquisitional trial”) but rather to internal investigations conducted by Eckhart’s own religious order, the Dominicans. Eckhart appealed this investigation to the Vatican and he repudiated everything that had been accused of being heretical. The Pope, to close the matter, issued a Bull clearly clarifying and condemning those errors of which Eckhart had been accused of.
ok. now we’re mincing about words like ‘trial.’ i think i’ve had enough of this. in light of your current statement, i think your initial statement was completely misleading.
i stand on my original recollection, which was that this is a good man who was wrongly (imo) persecuted by the Roman Church, and mainly Church authority, to the point of being accused of heresy, investigated and tried. apparently he died before it could go any further. the regular folk apparently loved the man. with that, i’m done. have the last word if you want.
LOL. It's not "mincing words" to recognize there's a big difference between a trial and an internal investigation. But whatever. I've had enough of this too. Have a blessed day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.