What is Gnosticism?

ever since the discovery of the nag hamadi library in egypt in 1945 and the subsequent publication of various non-canonical gospels and other lost ancient texts there has been an increased interest in the early history and development of christianity in particular there is a growing fascination with the so-called gnostics and their alternative interpretation of biblical scriptures but since the study of what is often term gnosticism is still very young there have emerged many different perspectives and interpretations on how this group or groups should be categorized which texts belong to who and how they should be understood as a result there are often many misconceptions about this topic and its complexities there's a tendency to sensationalize and exotify these things in ways that don't necessarily align with actual scholarship so with this in mind let's take a moment to look at what the latest scholarship says on this topic and ask ourselves the questions who were the gnostics and what is gnosticism [Applause] the term gnostic can be and is used in a variety of different ways the word itself comes from the greek term gnosis meaning knowledge or more often a specific kind of knowledge or insight beyond the conceptual gnosis is frequently used to mean a kind of intuitive spiritual knowledge as opposed to everyday information as such the word gnosis and gnostic has or had positive connotations in many circles in antiquity the hermitis for example talk about gnosis as opposed to episteme and proto-orthodox christians like clement of alexandria use the word to refer to a superior kind of spiritual or intellectual state and we often see this broad use of the term today in scholarly literature various people across history are called quote-unquote gnostics on the basis that they are connected to a supra-rational kind of knowledge for example islamic mystics or sufis are often referred to as gnostics with arabic words like erfan and arif being possible equivalents but when we talk about the gnostics or even gnosticism we are more often using the word in a specific way as referring to a movement in early christianity one that has become famous for its world neglecting attitudes and very complex metaphysical scheme the gnostics represented one tendency among a multitude of interpretations after the jesus event one that eventually disappeared after the gradual formation of a christian orthodoxy or official church and which can differ dramatically from the latter talking about the gnostics and gnosticism can be very difficult since they didn't survive beyond a few centuries a.d accessing sources and information about this topic has been hard the only sources we had for most of history were those written by the horesiologists so proto-christians or later writers like irenaeus for example who wrote very critically about the gnostics and wanted to sort of deem them as heretics but in 1945 the monumental discovery of the nag hammadi library in egypt revolutionized our understanding of these groups the coptic texts found in the library contain writings by the so-called gnostics themselves some of which had been mentioned in the works of the heresiologist previously and since then we've been able to get a much more comprehensive and nuanced understanding about the ideas and practices of various early christian communities and schools of thought despite this however there is disagreement among scholars on how this gnosticism should be categorized some have opted for a very universalist approach to gnosticism which views gnosticism as such as a sort of wider religious or spiritual intellectual movement in antiquity in to which many different groups belonged so we talk about specifically christian groups like the valentinians or the martianites or the um the sethians for example as all belonging to this wider category of gnosticism these scholars will often want to include other non-christian movements or traditions as gnosticism as well like the mandaeans or the manichaeans and sometimes even the hermitis many others will argue that there was no such thing as gnosticism at all this is just a modern category that we anachronistically applied to a context that was much more complex than that but many scholars today including david bracke in his book the gnostics argue for a kind of middle position with a much more narrow definition of gnosticism as a particular school of thought within the diversity of early christianity in this episode i will be following this more narrow definition of gnosticism talking about the gnostics as in particular an expression of early christianity and following scholar david bracke i will be identifying these gnostics especially or particularly with the group that is often known as the sethians while also touching on other related movements like the valentinians of course okay so who were the gnostics then well the first thing to have in mind here is the well the environment of early christianity a common way to present the first few centuries after jesus's death including by early christians like irenaeus who is a person who will return a lot in this discussion is with a single orthodox church from which a number of different sects or heresies diverged but this as you might imagine is a very anachronistic way of reading history it only seems that way from the perspective of a much later established orthodoxy looking back at its earliest developments now to tell you more about this topic in particular i've turned to my colleague and the religious scholar andrew henry from the channel religion for breakfast so is him to tell you more the discovery of the nag hamadi library was so important for historians not only because we discovered previously unknown works of literature but it also gave us a glimpse into the social dynamics of early christianity it sheds some light on what anti-heresy writers like irenaeus were trying to accomplish to illustrate what i mean let's examine the bishop of alexandria athanasius in 367 ce athanasius published a letter to the churches in egypt instructing them which books they're allowed to read he is the first christian author to apply the term canon to the same 27 books that most christians today use in their new testament he wrote in these books alone the teaching of piety is proclaimed let no one add to or subtract from them he goes on to attack anyone teaching and preaching from books outside of this canon what's interesting is that the nag hammadi codices are roughly contemporaneous with athanasius christians right down the road from him were probably reading and copying these so-called gnostic books now we might be tempted to read athanasius's letter as a top-down decree that drove these non-canonical writings into hiding in fact some early christian scholars have argued that but in a groundbreaking article the scholar of early christianity david brackey argued that rather than writing from a position of strength athanasius was writing from a precarious position in a christian landscape full of different competing modes of christianity his attempt to stipulate what books you're allowed to read reflects more fundamental conflicts between competing modes of christian authority spirituality and social organization in other words we're getting a glimpse into competing varieties of how to be christian how to do christianity during a time when those questions were not yet definitively answered on one hand we have varieties of christianity exemplified by athanasius who wanted a closed cannon of books and who organized their authority around elected bishops and parishes who derived their authority through apostolic succession and on the other hand with the nakamati codices we see evidence for varieties of christianity that were disinterested in a closed canon these were christians who saw no problem with writing more gospels christians who were interested in mystical and philosophical speculation and when it comes to authority and social organization we see christians like the valentinians that formed study circles around charismatic intellectual leaders so when we read anti-gnostic polemics we should remember to situate them in this historical context a time when these groups were still thriving and competing to use an analogy from david brackey these proto-orthodox writers had not yet won the horse race the race was ongoing we're not so much seeing a battle between a unified orthodoxy versus splinter cells of heresies we're seeing varieties of christianities all attempting to define their own social group defining the in-group versus the out-group there's perhaps no better example of an anti-gnostic polemicist trying to do this than the bishop of cyprus epiphanius in the late 4th century he wrote a book called the panarion which is basically a series of essays attacking several different groups that he labeled as heretics including the gnostics in one passage he describes a whole mess of disgusting rituals that the gnostics supposedly practiced in particular epiphanius describes them engaging in ritualized cannibalism now no historian thinks any gnostic group actually did this but his polemic is useful in shedding some light on what these heresyologists were trying to do what epiphanius is doing is inventing lurid unthinkable stories to try to socially categorize the gnostics as the ultimate evil the history of religions is full of examples like this as the scholar of early christianity david frankfurter argues accusing your religious rivals of ritualized sex or cannibalism is an effective social psychological strategy to make your opponents easier to attack easier to expel or ostracize from your own group and these groups did overlap many today think of gnosticism as a secretive or subversive antithesis to orthodoxy but these groups and ideas seem to have been out in the open the christian writer tertullian says that valentinus was almost elected a bishop of rome ironia says that valentinians were attending church groups in his own social circle the non-commodity codices themselves suggest that there was a vibrant intellectual culture to copy and disseminate these books and collect them into personal libraries which was not an inexpensive endeavor someone of a reasonably high social standing must have collected them because there were so few christians at the time people like athanasius and epiphanius were probably acutely aware of their differences and fought back hard against them trying to define their preferred mode of christianity this is why scholars today prefer to call all of these groups labeled under gnosticism as varieties of early christianity rather than buying into the binary of orthodoxy versus heresy varieties highlights the massive diversity of christianity at the time and highlights the fact that no one was guaranteed victory at the time back to you philip dr henry is a scholar of religion who specializes in early christianity he runs the youtube channel religion for breakfast which is one of the best channels on youtube when it comes to religion so if you haven't checked that out you should definitely go check out his channel and subscribe to it he has some excellent material on the gnostics in particular if you are interested in knowing more about that topic the model of a single true church from which heresies diverged has long been abandoned by scholars but neither should we see it as a group of fixed quote-unquote schools all competing in a race for authority there wasn't a unified group of proto-orthodox that remained unchanged and eventually won but a diverse intermingling of ideas interpretations and theological positions certainly certain social groups were formed in clusters of similar interpretations emerged in the early centuries but all these individuals and schools influenced each other and contributed to the gradual development that resulted in the eventual formation of an orthodox church this great diversity is reflected in the corpus of texts found at nag hamadi and otherwise which appear to come from a multitude of different early christian movements you have texts that would eventually become part of the orthodox canon like the four gospels of mark matthew luke and john etc but we also find texts that belong to the gnostic school of thought like the secret book of john and the gospel of judas there are texts like the gospel of truth which seems to come from the valentinians and even treatises like the gospel of thomas which appears to come from another christian movement altogether in other words there were many different christianities at this time most of whom produced many different texts the gnostics seemed to have been one of the most influential of these movements and they are mentioned by many other christians at this time most prominently in our old friend irenaeus a bishop of lyon who very harshly attacks what he considers to be deviant forms of christianity in his famous treaties detection and overthrow of gnosis falsely so-called sometimes known simply as against the heresies which was written around the year 180 he calls out the gnostic heresies or school of thought and all those inspired by them like the valentinians as having strayed from true christianity and created a demonically inspired abomination he traces all of these false teachings back to a supposed teacher or magician called simon magus or simon the magician and that all their claims to gnosis or true knowledge was in fact false keep in mind that the word heresy simply means a school of thought at this time and not necessarily heresy as it is used today in fact it is due to people like irenaeus and their writings that that word came to have the meaning that it has today that's a very interesting side note in any case irenaeus clearly isn't a fan of the gnostics and yet his writings has been one of the main sources that we've had for their teachings and practices for most of history and when we actually read irenaeus's reports it seems to align pretty well with the writings by the gnostics themselves which we now have since the discovery at nag hamadi which shows that even though he was a polemical writer who wanted to discard the gnostics as heretics and to his whole argument was that they were wrong basically it seems that what he wrote wasn't entirely untrue and that we can rely to some degree on what he has to say so in spite of his polemical nature and the fact that he was so critical irenaeus still remains one of our main sources and most trustworthy sources to this day irenaeus himself clearly doesn't think that this group has access to gnosis since this was a positive term for most people at the time so with this in mind we can be pretty sure that he isn't the one who gave them this name and that there was a school of thought which appears to have referred to themselves as the gnostics it also appears that other groups like the valentinians were actually the main targets of irenaeus's critique were not considered as part of this gnostic school but were nonetheless of course inspired by them this has led many scholars to argue that this gnostic school of thought as such identified by irenaeus and others at the time should be identified specifically with the group that we today often called the sethians or the sethian gnostics but who were these gnostics or sethians then what did they believe and how did they practice to get to the bottom of these questions we can look at two primary kinds of sources those written by other people like those by rnas for example and sources written by the gnostics themselves and luckily due to the discovery at nag hamadi the latter is actually possible today out of all the texts found in this collection there are a few that can with some certainty be attributed to the gnostic school more narrowly defined most primary and influential of these is the so-called secret book of john sometimes called the apocrypha of john but there are others like zostrianos the foreigner the reality of the rulers and the book of zoroaster the very famous gospel of judas which was actually later find not a part of the nagamadi library as such is also usually considered by scholars to belong to the gnostics one of the reasons these texts are grouped together and connected to this specific group is that their cosmic myth is relatively consistent throughout and it is to this myth that we now turn the gnostic myth has become famous for its complexity and the way it turns some basic concepts of mainstream christianity and judaism on its head the world of the divine is vast it's a vast divine world filled with many eons and their relationship with each other even quote unquote before the creation of the material world which takes place outside of time so before and after has no meaning here but still even before the creation of the material world this complex pleiroma of many divine eons known together as the entirety existed in harmony the gnostics inherited the conception of god and the divine from antiquity and philosophy as a complex realm rather than a stricter monotheism as it later came to be conceived in any case at the very top or center of this divine realm what encompasses the whole affair is the absolute and ultimate god which is referred to with many names such as the platonic one or monad or as the father of the entirety and as the invisible spirit this god is understood in common apathetic ways it is completely unknowable it cannot be described or understood in any way and yet it is the source of everything and indeed the reality in which everything takes place quote the one is the invisible spirit we should not think of it as a god or like a god for it is greater than a god because it has nothing over it and no lord above it it does not exist within anything inferior to it since everything exists within it for it established itself it is eternal since it does not need anything for it is absolutely complete it has never lacked anything in order to be completed by it rather it is always absolutely completely in light the one is illimitable since there is nothing before it to limit it unfathomable since there is nothing before it to fathom it immeasurable since there was nothing before it to measure it invisible since nothing has seen it eternal since it exists eternally unadorable since nothing could comprehend it to utter it unnameable since there is nothing before it to give it a name the invisible spirit is a kind of intellect in other words in some way not understandable to us it thinks about itself and knows itself and in the process of this thinking god is devolved into the complex world of eons the entirety already described these eons are kind of like god's thoughts about himself thus being both identical to him but simultaneously also somehow different in the words of david brackie quote the eons that make up the entirety result from the invisible spirit's knowledge or thought of itself they are its thinking or its intellect in all its complexity they form also a spiritual realm the equivalent of plato's realm of ideal forms for the gnostics the entirety that the eons constitute is truly real and eternal the material world is a flawed imitation of the entirety and destined to perish now all these eons which are kind of like divine beings or divine lights are named after certain divine attributes the faint imitations of which we can find in the material world the first emanation or eon that appears from the invisible spirit sometimes known as the second principle is called forethought or by the name of barbalo quote his in other words the invisible spirit thought became a reality and she who appeared in his presence in shining light came forth she is the first power who preceded everything and came forth from his mind as the forethought of the all her light shines like the father's light she the perfect power is the image of the perfect and invisible virgin spirit she the first power the glory of barbalo the perfect glory among the eons the glory of revelation she glorified and praised the virgin spirit for because of the spirit she had come forth she is the first thought the image of the spirit she became the universal womb for she precedes everything the barbalo serves as the most central of the eons from which all others then originate it is also a feature that all gnostic sources have in common whereas everything beyond or after the barbalo can differ between texts and different authors but this second principle is also very important for its connection to christianity because it is central to the idea of christ in the secret book of john the barbalo together with the invisible spirit begets the self-originate or christ thus forming a kind of family triad father the invisible spirit mother the barbalo and son christ we will return more to the will of christ in the gnostic myth later but this self-originate or christ also serves as a transitionary eon between the barbalo and the rest of the multitude of aeons that make up the entirety and he is often described as being the ruler over the rest of the eons around this christ eon are four luminaries referred to as harmosel and eleleth which also contain the archetypal human beings adam and his son seth from these four luminaries or eons stem further eons and you can see how this system is very complicated and hard to grasp it is also important to remember that the different gnostic texts give different accounts on this divine realm and it's eons so it's hard to say anything definitive about the details the eons are often numbered at 24 in total and as mentioned earlier they are named after and represents certain attributes of god or the invisible spirit there are eons like truth mind life and perhaps most importantly for the gnostic myth wisdom or sophia in greek even though all these eons are seen as being beyond gender or genderless they are often thought of as existing in male female pairs which complement each other the eons are also semi-distinct in other words they are all god in a general sense but make up a more complex kind of divinity than what we are used to today now the very general and central part of this myth appears with one of these so-called outermost eons that is wisdom or sophia in the secret book of john it describes how this wisdom eon or sophia wanted to create something a thought of her own but did so without the consent or knowledge of her male counterpart or asking permission from the great invisible spirit court she wisdom wanted to bring forth something like herself without the consent of the spirit who had not given approval without her partner and without his consideration the mail did not give approval she did not find her partner and she considered this without the spirit's consent and without the knowledge of her partner nonetheless she gave birth this resulted in an imperfect creation a misshapen pseudo-divine being that stood outside of the divine world of the entirety quote it did not resemble its mother and was misshapen when sophia saw what her desire had produced it changed into the figure of a snake with the face of a lion sophia was immediately very ashamed of her actions and creation and decided to hide it away from the rest of the eons in a kind of cloud this being was given the name yada baoth and is sometimes also known by names like suclas he aldeba oath himself in his ignorance thinks that he is the only divinity having little knowledge of the true divine world he thus proceeds to create an imperfect and highly flawed world modeled after the dim memory he has of the divine ple roma this world the creation of yaldaba oath is the material world in which we live and this is where the gnostics show their radical departure from what we consider mainstream christianity and judaism today the idea that the material world was created by a divine being lower than the highest god a demiurge or craftsman in platonic language was taken for granted at this time even by monotheists but the idea that this creator or this craftsman was ignorant in some account even evil was quite radical this also meant a radical re-reading of biblical myths all of this meant that the god of the whole hebrew bible or the old testament to christians the god described in genesis as creating adam and eve the god who sent the flood the god of the israelites was not the true ultimate god it was yaldaba in the grand scheme of things the material world becomes something very negative as a result of a grave mistake that must be fixed a creation by an ignorant imperfect foolish creator that is keeping us prisoners indeed the human being according to the gnostic myth has a dual nature we are material beings created by aldeba oath but the true divine realm also helped us by tricking yaldabaoth to quote blow his spirit into adam so famously said in the bible which was really a way to infuse the human being with the divine spark from wisdom and from the rest of the eons this allowed adam to stand up straight and to challenge yaldabaoth and his rulers in other words there is a spiritual part of human nature that comes from the true divine realm which is also our ticket to get out of this lesser material world after eve is created she and adam have a number of children the famous cain and abel are conceived through a kind of imperfect or impure union when the spirit of eve leaves her body and yeah the oath actually well he actually rapes her which results in this these two children but adam and eve have another son called seth who is conceived in a more pure way and seth becomes very important for the gnostics seth is seen as the bearer of gnosis or true wisdom and as the kind of ancestor to the gnostics themselves so as you might know these gnostics at least if we define them as narrowly as i and some other scholars have here sometimes or more often actually refer to themselves as the seed of seth or sometimes also known as the sethians and this is because they trace their lineage back to this character of seth who was the sort of true son of adam and eve in any case this creation story of course differs very dramatically from the one we're used to from mainstream christianity so to say for example the snake or serpent that tempts eve and adam to eat from the tree of knowledge to the gnostics is not satan who tricks them but is actually the messenger from the divine world of the pliroma the entirety who is actually trying to help adam and eve to escape from the creation of yada both so this interpretation is completely turned upside down it's the exact opposite of the mainstream position many argue that this idea of an ignorant false god comes naturally from a reading or comparison between the old and new testament even today many who read these two collection of texts are sometimes struck by the seeming at least difference in personality of god in these two testaments or scriptures so in the old testament for example god seems a lot more harsh like he orders the execution of groups of people he sends down thunder and and it's a lot of nasty stuff he's very angry he's jealous all these kind of characteristics while in the new testament he seems to emphasize other things like love and compassion and so people like the gnostics in antiquity they also notice this seeming difference and to them the only explanation for this weird difference in character must be that these are in fact two different gods one described in the old testament or the hebrew bible which is the false god yadaba oath and the true god who sends jesus the invisible spirits of the actual divine world the other oath in all his ignorance and vanity wants his creation to worship him only punishing those who don't exclaims in the hebrew bible quote for my parts i am a jealous god and there is no other god apart from me which according to the secret book of john paradoxically gives away the fact that there is indeed another god called for if no other one existed of whom would he be jealous human beings are caught in the delusional prison that is the material world but has the potential of escaping to their true home they need help in order to do so and this is where jesus enters the picture the gnostics were christians after all and existed as a response to the life and teachings of jesus of nazareth considered to be the christ or anointed one the savior of humanity again the different texts differ on the nature of christ as the incarnation of the cosmic saber figure some like the first thought in three forms seem to indicate that it is the barbados herself who enters into human form as jesus quote from my parts i put on jesus i extracted him from the accursed wood and i made him stand at rest in the dwelling places of his parents but we've also seen how the secret book of john describes christ as a divine eon in himself being begotten from the invisible spirit and the barbalo the important part to know is that jesus is a savior sent by the highest god the true god in this case to save humanity from the prison of the ignorant yaldaba oath the gnostics have a significantly different conception of jesus from the later orthodox position they professed a kind of dosetism that is the idea that jesus did not actually have a material body it only seemed like he did and thus he never suffered on the cross in any real way and if you know mainstream christian theology you'll know that this goes against some of its very fundamental features jesus's humanity and suffering is a central part of the salvation narrative but remember the gnostics saw the material world in a very negative light as the creation of a foolish pseudo-god and thus didn't place the same emphasis on the physical aspect to the gnostics jesus didn't save mankind by suffering on the cross he did so by teaching them about gnosis about the true knowledge of our real identities and our essential home in the divine realm of the entirety christ was sent by the great invisible spirit to remind humanity of our true home and thereby help us escape the shackles of material existence quite a different version of events from the orthodox narrative so this is where the gnostics find themselves they are the seed of seth those who have been given the true teachings of christ passed down from the apostles they possess exclusive gnosis of the divine reality which they can impart on the initiate and this group made up a significant part of the diverse world of early christianity the practical aspects of gnosticism are of course connected to these very grand myths and theories and even here they differ very dramatically from mainstream christianity our sources suggest that the gnostics did perform some kind of baptism through water a practice that was very common in various religious traditions in antiquity this baptism is supposed to have involved something referred to as the five seals but scholars are unsure what this actually means it is quite likely that this baptism differed in many ways from the baptism ritual that we know from mainstream christianity for example it seems that the gnostics would be baptized on multiple locations perhaps in in connection to reaching different stations or or levels on the spiritual path or the path to back to the divine pleiroma it's not entirely certain and indeed this seems to be another major characteristic of gnostic practice different methods and techniques that help the practitioner ascend into the divine realm of different eons until reaching the highest eon of the barbalo and perhaps even contemplating the invisible spirit itself quote the gnostics believe that the human intellect could experience gnosis that is acquaintance with god within this mortal life however fleetingly they portrayed this experience primarily as an ascent to higher knowledge that was both intellectual and cosmic intellectually the gnostic could ascend by contemplating increasingly abstract levels of existence starting by understanding one's own existence and that of other lower divine beings advancing to the contemplation of higher eons ultimately the barbalo and attempting to gain some imperfect acquaintance with the ineffable first principle the invisible spirit these practices seem to have involved a kind of asceticism and studying of mystical and philosophical works but other than this we really find no characteristic rituals associated with the gnostics that survive at least indeed they even outright rejected certain practices that other christians performed like the eucharist which they saw as foolish this becomes apparent in the famous gospel of judas where jesus scorns some of the apostles for performing the eucharist and for doing so they are ignorant and are worshiping a false god rather than the correct one in this gospel judas iscariot becomes the only apostle who knows jesus true identity when he exclaims quote you have come from the mortal realm of the barbalo but as for the one who sent you i am not worthy to say his name these doctrines practices and scriptural interpretations set them apart from many other early christians including people like irenaeus and justin martyr who would in later times be considered orthodox or proto-orthodox but as talked about earlier in the early period all of these diverse movements had an equal claim to be the quote-unquote true christianity or of becoming orthodox the gnostic school of thought often called sethians appears to have been very influential their ideas seem to have been widespread across the roman empire and influenced many other early christians this includes movements that are sometimes included under the category of gnosticism or broadly defined but which doesn't fit the bill if we define the term more narrowly as we have here the valentinians for example associated with the 2nd century teacher valentinus from alexandria took a lot of inspiration from the gnostic myths but modified them using more clearly christian terminology texts from the nagamadi attributed to the valentinians include the gospel of truth and the tripartite treatise which showcase a lot of similarities with the gnostic myth albeit a bit simplified the worldview of the valentinians were not as outright negative as that of gnostics and seems a bit more explicitly monistic they also seem to have blended in with the rest of the christians much more going to the same churches and congregations only meeting for special meetings to be taught the particularly valentinian aspects of the teachings indeed in irenaeus's against the heresies it is the valentinians who are his main target of critique and concern probably because they outwardly appeared like any other christians but according to him harbored heretical teachings in secrets and invited unsuspecting christians into their study circles similarly the anatolian martian and the marcia knights also share a lot of features with the gnostics including the complex divine realm the pseudo god or demiurge that created the material world etc however the creator god was not ignorant or evil according to marcion but quotes unrelentingly just and the highest god is he referred to as the stranger rather than the invisible spirit marcion is created with being the first christian to attempt to create a canonical new testament including a modified version of the gospel of luke and a few of the pauline letters and he differs from the gnostics not the related groups by denying the hebrew bible or old testament entirely so while the gnostics saw the old testament as somewhat misguided in its praise of the false yadava oath they still saw it as useful for teaching purposes but marcion just rejected its use completely there are other groups and thinkers clearly inspired by the gnostic school of thought in this early period all of whom we can dedicate separate episodes to but the gnostic school of thought in particular stands out as a very fascinating expression of the jesus movements as christianity became the imperial religion of the roman empire an official orthodoxy was established in the different church councils over time the gnostic school disappears from the historical record they did not survive these developments at least not explicitly but indeed we find remnants of the gnostics in later developments and movements as well the religions of manichaeism and mandaism share a lot of features with the gnostics and even later in the middle ages there are groups like the cathers in western europe whose teachings may connect in some way to the gnostic school or at least to certain of the ideas that they held and as with so many other ancient religions we find a kind of resurgence of interest in gnosticism today from youtube channels reddit forums and university courses it all testifies to an increased interest and fascination with this ancient quote-unquote heresy the fact that people even today actually identify as gnostics and as wanting to revive this ancient form of christianity shows just how complex the religious environment of today and really all times and places are and that every religion and religious movements are engaged in constant flux and development if you want to support this channel that you can do so by becoming a monthly patron or by giving a one-time donation and i will leave links to all of that in the description or you can just simply like subscribe and comment on this video i'll see you next time [Music] you

Channel: Let's Talk Religion

Views: 1,519,219

Keywords: What is gnosticism, Gnosticism, Christianity, Varieties of Christianity, Spiritual christianity, early christianity, Jesus, Gnostic gospels, non-canonical gospels, Valentinians, Marcion, Valentinus, Sethian, Sethian gnostics, Gnostic myth, Yaldabaoth, Demiurge, Ancient religion, gnostic christianity, gnostic jesus, gnostics, Gospel of Judas, Barbelo, gnosticism explained

Id: ockwMVE7PgM

Length: 40min 12sec (2412 seconds)

Published: Sun Oct 03 2021

Reddit Comments

[u/The_Nilbog_King]

This is probably gonna get taken down for not technically being about white wolf, but luckily, this is the kind of shit we live for on r/WorldOfInspiration .

[u/Vermbraunt]

Gnosticism is pretty interesting tbh

[u/UntarnishedCopper]

I have found the Vampire backstory makes way more sense with a gnostic take of things.