I’ve been discussing Gnosticism in “Gnosticism” (as it pertains to Radix Fidem) and “Gnosticism, The Trinity, and the Dialectical Method” (as part of my series on the Trinity). In the comment section, Bruce Charlton wrote:
Theosis has seldom been taken seriously – and even when it is (eg Eastern Orthodoxy) this is usually seen in terms of Man becoming less material, and more a spirit – beginning to live in Heaven while still on earth. Earth is just a barrier to theosis.
This largely conforms to what I discussed here throughout 2024.
See how closely this matches the teachings of Radix Fidem—which explicitly denies being Gnostic—from as far back as 2019:
Back in October of 2021, Jack @ Sigma Frame did a nine-part series on Gnosticism. After following along, I commented:
So I reached out to an ordained Gnostic minister that I know, who confirmed what I had suspected: the majority of Jack had claimed about Gnosticism was wrong or even completely inverted. I was given a great write-up on the subject, but unfortunately this was lost when I got a new phone. So I’m going to review Jack’s posts directly in this series.
Proto-Gnosticism
Ed [of Radix Fidem] clued me in to some of the history that appears to be selectively omitted from abridged online sources. Gnosticism is rooted in the Jewish rejection of Jesus as the Messiah.
Okay, let’s unpack this.
First, Gnosticism is not rooted in the Jewish rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. Gnosticism has its roots in three non-Christian primary sources: Greek platonic philosophy (e.g. Dualism), Persian Zoroastrianism (e.g. Dualism), and Jewish Apocalyptic literature. Here is a summary:
Second, Gnosticism is not Jewish in a proper sense. The Greek influence on Gnosticism is heavily influenced by the pagan mystery religions, from which comes dualism, the focus on the mystical (including salvation through esoteric gnosis), mythological frameworks (i.e. cosmic origins, Sophia compared to Osiris and Dionysus), and initiation rites. The pagan mystery religions were characterized by syncretism, and Gnosticism carried this forward with its interactions with other religions like Judaism.
Third, even though many (but not all!) “Gnostic” sects originated in Jewish milieus—places where Jews lived—Gnosticism was not necessarily derived from Judaism directly. For example, the Nicolaitans may have merely been existing external group reacting against the influence of Judaism and Christianity, by taking what they taught and reinterpreting them to their own purposes (i.e syncretism).
During the diaspora in the centuries leading up to Christ, Judaism made a sharp departure from the religion of the Old Testament, and incorporated elements of Persian Zoroastrianism* and Greek philosophy (Hellenism), resulting in a body of rational and legalist speculation that deduced rules from Old Testament documents (the Talmud), and thereby dismissed the mystical nature of faith. This was the religious Judaism of Jesus’ day.
The introduction of Hellenistic rationalism was not the only pagan tendency to influence Judaism as it was still forming up through the time of Christ. There was already a Western brand of “mysticism” that claimed to be esoteric (see Western Esotericism), but upon examination, appears to be little more than a way to incorporate intuition as a source of insight, and pretend that it is something higher than mere intuition.
This is such a strange claim to make immediately after introducing Gnosticism.
Gnosticism is a highly spiritual and otherworldly focused. It’s not based on intellectual intuition (i.e. pattern recognition). The idea that it consists of a rational, legalist, and rule-based dismissal of the mystical is the exact opposite of reality. Many sects explicitly rejected the authority of earthly rules and regulations.
There is no overlap between this view of Judaism and Gnosticism. They are polar opposites.
To illustrate the absurdity, let’s look at the source that Jack provided on “Western Esotericism.” It states:
That, by the way, is syncretism. Continuing…
This is explicitly anti-rational, mystical, and otherwordly. Continuing…
The complete rejection of the material hardly supports a “rational, legalist, and rule-based dismissal of the mystical” nor is it in any way based on physical intellectual intuition. Continuing…
That’s as mystical and non-intuitive (i.e. not pattern recognition) as it comes.
Jack’s source states the opposite of what he claims.
If you are confused, it is because Jack is trying to shoehorn his own anachronistic assumptions from his Radix Fidem religion into history. Radix Fidem falsely claims that its philosophy comes from the Ancient Near East and is a rejection of Hellenism. It believes that first century Judaism was completely non-mystical and Hellenistic and that Jesus came to restore ancient mysticism. And, Jack is claiming here that Gnosticism is actually pretend-mysticism hiding a purely rationalist approach. This is totally absurd.
The reality is that Radix Fidem’s belief system is both Gnostic and Hellenistic. But if Jack were honest about his religion, he’s be forced to reject it. This is why he’s misrepresenting his source to try to conform to his anachronistic conception of reality:
Jesus’ testimony aroused the awareness of the mystical within the Pharisees of that time. In order for the Jews to justify rejecting the claims of Jesus to be the Messiah, they had to redefine what the Hebrew mystical approach said about Him. They also needed for Judaism to silence valid Christian criticism, and the raw guilt of having killed their Messiah. A revised form of “Jewish Mysticism” grew out of these motivations.
Extra points for creative storytelling, but Gnosticism is not rebranded “Jewish Mysticism.”
Remember when we mentioned the three roots of Gnosticism? One of them was the tradition of Jewish Apocalyptic literature, including Daniel, Isaiah, Zechariah, Ezekiel, 1 and 2 Enoch (and other apocryphal texts), and Revelation. If merely being in the genre of Apocalyptic literature made such writings Gnostic, then scripture itself would have to be Gnostic.
The fact that Christians, Jews, and Gnostics all used Apocalyptic writings is not particularly informative, considering they all arose in the same cultural millieu. But simply being in the genre did not determine whether it was mystical or a rejection of mysticism.
Thus, there arose a number of false teachers who incorporated elements of the western version of pagan Gentile mysticism (which was mostly interpretive beliefs based on intuition**) into the revised concept of “Jewish Mysticism” in an effort to undermine the early church with heresies.
The book of Revelation speaks of the Nicolaitans, but it never associates them with the Jews. Later writers—Irenaeus and Hippolytus—associated them with antinominism (the rejection of moral laws).
The idea that a group of Jews who were obsessed with reason, rules, and regulations would become awakened to mysticism by Christ and respond by embracing pretend-mysticism and completely rejecting the law is…. an odd theory at best.
Fundamentally, Gnosticism bears little resemblance to the ancient Jewish beliefs and practices. Gnosticism looks very much like it was derived directly from the pagan mystery religions. Their syncretism adequately explains the Gnostic embrace of the Jewish texts and of Christianity. Gnostics borrowed from the Jews (their scripture in particular) rather than the Jews borrowing from the Gnostics.
Early Gnosticism was ethnically diverse. It included:
- Hellenized Jews (especially around Alexandria)
- Greco-Romans (e.g. Rome, Ephesus; Carpocratians)
- Egyptians (e.g. Hermeticism, Basilideans, Valentinians)
- Syrians, Mesopotamians, Persians (e.g. Mandaeans and Manichaens)
The evidence that the Gnostics were primarily and generally ethnically Jewish—rather than merely borrowing elements from Judaism—is scant. Jack’s thesis is highly speculative and fueled mainly by his theological and ideological need for history to conform to those views.
A great many churches had serious problems with pagan religious philosophies, and this confusion endured for the next few centuries. Remnants of these philosophies have had enduring popularity up to the present day. For example, Valentinianism is still celebrated as Valentine’s Day.
Interestingly, there is no direct evidence that Valentinus was an ethnic Jew or that he was strongly influenced by ethnic Judaism. As with normal practice of Gnostic syncretism, Valentinus incorporated the Jewish scriptures and reinterpreted them within his own framework.
Syncretism
Assuming that the Gnostics were Jews because they used the Jewish scriptures is an error in reasoning: “affirming the consequent.” The reason they used the Jewish scriptures was because they were Gnostic. The Gnostics were not Zoroastrian because they subsumed Zoroastrianism, neither were they Christian because they subsumed the stories of Christ, neither were they Jewish because they subsumed Judaism.
Syncretism is about merging disparate things together, not about becoming it. Gnostics were not converts to Judaism or Christianity, they were more like parasites.
As I pointed out in “Gnosticism,” the various Gnostic “sects” had in common had little-to-nothing to do with ethnic Judaism proper.
Will discuss this in more detail throughout the series.
I agree with your understanding of Gnosticism, including that it has essentially nothing to do with Judaism (except insofar as historical Christianity has been directly influenced by Judaism).
As you say, Gnosticism’s roots are probably pre-existing esoteric paganism – which philosophy (in my understanding) actually absorbed and severely distorted mainstream Christianity (with its assumptions of God as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent monotheistically-conceptualized spirit deity; that lived in a realm outside of time.
In other words, I regard the entirety of mainstream church Christianity – Orthodox, Roman and Protestant; and also historical Gnosticism proper (including its last efflorescence with the Cathars)- as Both being strands of a mistaken framing of Christianity within abstract and deistic (i.e not personal and theistic) pagan philosophical conceptualizations.
Gnosticism is more completely captured by this abstract deism, but mainstream Christianity has seldom been free from it – at least among its theologians, priests and ministers (the simple laity are presumably another matter!).
As I’ve said before, it seems to me that most of the references to Gnosticism that have been for c 20 years endemic to the “Christian/ Right” blogosphere is derived (directly or indirectly – e.g. via Lawrence Auster) from Eric Voegelin – who is a non-Christian and secular source of near-zero validity IMO:
https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2023/07/what-gnosticism-is-not.html
Voegelin seems to have wanted to prove that Leftism was a heresy of Christianity (rather than being instead, as I believe, anti-Christian) under the influence of an abstract and hyper-inclusive Bad tendency he called “Gnosticism” – but which had only the vaguest selective similarity to the beliefs of actual Gnostics.
See my response here
So I reached out to an ordained Gnostic minister that I know, who confirmed what I had suspected: the majority of Jack had claimed about Gnosticism was wrong or even completely inverted.
Don’t worry about that,Jack can’t even get the timeline for the broader MGTOW or the ”third way”(as even Novaseeker said at DAL”’the early MGTOWS kept claiming there was a third way” besides the MRAS & PUAS ”traditional” ways of interacting with the Government and society that had/has failed(even more in recent years if it was possible in what their ”red pill” advocates said was going to happen later), Jack even admits{ ”women(who the ‘sphere has said ”are dumb old dogs that can’t learn new tricks”) had discovered much of the PUA playbook between 2015 and from my exhaustive two(2)-minute google search, by the year 2020.”}
Ed [of Radix Fidem] clued me in to some of the history that appears to be selectively omitted from abridged online sources. Gnosticism is rooted in the Jewish rejection of Jesus as the Messiah.
”Gnostics” were heavily reading the Old Testament=Jewish Scriptures to reinterpret them as ”the physical world is a lie/prison” theme that loosely held together most of Gnosticism as an identifiable set of beliefs.
Jack @ Sigma Frame
During the diaspora in the centuries leading up to Christ, Judaism made a sharp departure from the religion of the Old Testament, and incorporated elements of Persian Zoroastrianism* and Greek philosophy (Hellenism), resulting in a body of rational and legalist speculation that deduced rules from Old Testament documents (the Talmud), and thereby dismissed the mystical nature of faith. This was the religious Judaism of Jesus’ day.
The introduction of Hellenistic rationalism was not the only pagan tendency to influence Judaism as it was still forming up through the time of Christ. There was already a Western brand of “mysticism” that claimed to be esoteric (see Western Esotericism), but upon examination, appears to be little more than a way to incorporate intuition as a source of insight, and pretend that it is something higher than mere intuition.
This is such a strange claim to make immediately after introducing Gnosticism.
Gnosticism is a highly spiritual and otherworldly focused. It’s not based on intellectual intuition (i.e. pattern recognition). The idea that it consists of a rational, legalist, and rule-based dismissal of the mystical is the exact opposite of reality. Many sects explicitly rejected the authority of earthly rules and regulations.
There is no overlap between this view of Judaism and Gnosticism. They are polar opposites.
To illustrate the absurdity, let’s look at the source that Jack provided on “Western Esotericism.” It states:
The origins of Western esotericism are in the Hellenistic Eastern Mediterranean, then part of the Roman Empire, during Late Antiquity, a period encompassing the first centuries of the Common Era. This was a milieu in which there was a mix of religious and intellectual traditions from Greece, Egypt, the Levant, Babylon, and Persia, and in which globalisation, urbanisation, and multiculturalism were bringing about socio-cultural change.
That, by the way, is syncretism. Continuing…
It has been established that these texts discuss the true nature of God, emphasising that humans must transcend rational thought and worldly desires in order to find salvation and be reborn into a spiritual body of immaterial light, thereby achieving spiritual unity with divinity.
This is explicitly anti-rational, mystical, and otherwordly. Continuing…
It was the Gnostic belief that humans, who were imbued with the divine light, should seek to attain gnosis and thus escape from the world of matter and rejoin the divine source.
The complete rejection of the material hardly supports a “rational, legalist, and rule-based dismissal of the mystical” nor is it in any way based on physical intellectual intuition. Continuing…
[Theurgy] involved a practice designed to make gods appear, who could then raise the theurgist’s mind to the reality of the divine
That’s as mystical and non-intuitive (i.e. not pattern recognition) as it comes.
Jack’s source states the opposite of what he claims.
If you are confused, it is because Jack is trying to shoehorn his own anachronistic assumptions from his Radix Fidem religion into history. Radix Fidem falsely claims that its philosophy comes from the Ancient Near East and is a rejection of Hellenism. It believes that first century Judaism was completely non-mystical and Hellenistic and that Jesus came to restore ancient mysticism. And, Jack is claiming here that Gnosticism is actually pretend-mysticism hiding a purely rationalist approach. This is totally absurd.
The reality is that Radix Fidem’s belief system is both Gnostic and Hellenistic. But if Jack were honest about his religion, he’s be forced to reject it. This is why he’s misrepresenting his source to try to conform to his anachronistic conception of reality:
All of these latter-day ”RP” Gnostics go back to Emanuel Swedenborg Who
”was formerly a highly regarded inventor and scientist, achieving several engineering innovations and studying physiology and anatomy. Then, “in 1741, he also began to have a series of intense mystical experiences, dreams, and visions, claiming that he had been called by God to reform Christianity and introduce a new church.”
None of that sounds like the latter day ”RP Geniuses” who can’t even
”He must rule his own household well, keeping his children under control, with true dignity, commanding their respect in every way and keeping them respectful.-1 Timothy 3:4-Amplified Bible, Classic Edition
-yet
”2 So you, my son, be strong [constantly strengthened] and empowered in the grace that is [to be found only] in Christ Jesus. 2 The things [the doctrine, the precepts, the admonitions, the sum of my ministry] which you have heard me teach [a]in the presence of many witnesses, entrust [as a treasure] to reliable and faithful men who will also be capable and qualified to teach others. 3 Take with me your share of hardship [passing through the difficulties which you are called to endure], like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. 4 No soldier in active service gets entangled in the [ordinary business] affairs of civilian life; [he avoids them] so that he may please the one who enlisted him to serve. 5 And if anyone competes as an athlete [in competitive games], he is not crowned [with the wreath of victory] unless he competes according to the rules. 6 The hard-working farmer [who labors to produce crops] ought to be the first to receive his share of the crops. 7 Think over the things I am saying [grasp their application], for the Lord will grant you insight and understanding in everything.-2 Timothy 2-Amplified Bible
& they still can’t figure out ”why have I not been crowned yet?”
Here’s a hint!!
”And if anyone competes as an athlete [in competitive games], he is not crowned [with the wreath of victory] unless he competes according to the rules.”
They admit they failed to follow the rules here
”He must rule his own household well, keeping his children under control, with true dignity, commanding their respect in every way and keeping them respectful.-1 Timothy 3:4-Amplified Bible, Classic Edition
IOW?-They failed at the beginning and continue to fail at the end!
They admit they failed to follow the rules here…
And, as I pointed out in Constructive Criticism, Part 3 (and Part 2 and Part 5) the other day, they don’t follow the rules of patriarchy:
If you don’t think that it is necessary for her to be under her father’s authority, then you don’t think father rule is essential. You don’t believe in patriarchy.
I’ve studied this extensively and I would suggest the following correction. Gnosticism never existed. The church fathers don’t call them gnostics. They says heresies/heretics. Gnosticism is a modern made up concept. Also the church fathers imputed false made up things to these heretics to make them seem more heretical so people would not accept their reasonable ideas. They all have in common that the Jews are not God’s chosen people and the ceremonial law and genocidal commandments were from the principalities and powers not God. The aeon speculation theory is not really part of their teaching but is drawn from Hinduism to make them look really heretical. The idea they were entirely other word focused is based on a strawman that if you don’t treat the Old Testament as inerrant and worship Jews as God’s chosen people then you are rejecting the world. Also the strawman that seeing the principalities and powers inpersonated God in parts of the Old Testament to command genocides is saying there are two eternal Gods. That is how the Judaizing Catholic kikes banned the true teachings of Paul. “Oh, they’re teaching two gods!” No they weren’t. Read Galatians. Paul says Christ nailed the handwriting of ordinaces that was against us (i.e. the ceremonial law) to the cross and made an open show of the principalitiea and powers and defeated them and THEREFORE let no man judge you for not keeping kosher etc. So Paul is saying the ceremonial law is from wicked angels not God. That’s “Gnosticism,” i.e. REAL Christianity as opposed to Kikeianity.
So “Gnosticism never existed” but “Also the church fathers imputed false made up things to these heretics to make them seem more heretical so people would not accept their reasonable ideas.”
Which heretics (or heretical ideas) do you find so reasonable? Where is the true church if the critics of these heretics were wrong?
I’ll answer this for Jethro. The true church can still exist despite the delusion that the Jews were God’s chosen people. So long as they’re not saying the Jews are still God’s chosen people they can be a true church. The Jews used to be but are no longer God’s chosen people is not wrong enough to damn. But the Jews are still God’s chosen people is damnable antichristianity. But the truth is God hated Judaism so much he hijacked a manmade scripture and fulfilled whatever parts he felt like, which is why the Messianic prophecies are taken out of context, why Isaiah 7:14 alone is inspired out of all of Isaiah 7, for instance. You might be able to be saved without knowing that, but cannot defend society against the Jewish leaches and their “god” which is Satan, which is why they have been allowed to spread their religion of LGBTQP+ everywhere.
Jack Smitty,
“The Jews used to be but are no longer God’s chosen people…”
In the Olivet Discourse fortelling the events leading up to and including the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD, Jesus quotes from Isaiah 13:10 and Daniel 7:13, while referencing Daniel 9’s abomination of desolation, where Daniel had been reading Jeremiah 30-33. Jesus was plainly referring to Jeremiah 31:35-37 and Jeremiah 33:25-26, which clearly parallel the quote from Isaiah. This is further confirmed by Hebrews 8 explicitly quoting from Jeremiah 31 with regards to the ending of the Old Covenant and the start of the New Covenant.
There is no ambiguity about what is being discussed here: when the celestial bodies fail, God’s covenant with Israel as a nation would fail forever. And Jesus said this would occur “within one generation” with the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD.
Thus did the marriage betrothal from God’s proposal of marriage (in 585BC) end with the Jew rejecting it (from 30-70AD) and subsequently die the permanent death as a nation (in 70AD).
(click to make bigger)
The New Testament describes Christians as Israel. To anyone writing after 70AD, there was no longer a Jewish “Israel.” It was solely Christian. Consider Romans 10:1-3,11:17-24, Philippians 3:3, 1 Peter 2:9-10, Galatians 3:7,29, etc.
“But the truth is God hated Judaism so much he hijacked a manmade scripture and fulfilled whatever parts he felt like”
Hijacked? By what do you substantiate such a bold claim?
The Jesus and the Apostles testified that the Old Testament was scripture. And, as I’ve stated, the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Daniel all foretold precisely the fate of the nation of Israel. Far from being hijacked, God’s word in scripture is how we know that the Jews would be and ultimately were rejected as a nation.
These themes are heavily interconnected between the Old and New Testaments, and between the Prophets, Jesus, and the Apostles. We have Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Hebrews all discussing the same thing. Just the New Testament references and allusions to Jeremiah 30-33 alone are quite numerous: Romans 2:15,3:13,11:26–27; 2 Corinthians 3:6,6:16-18; Revelation 6:12-13,7:16–17,21:3. Plus, the entire book of Revelation relies heavily on the imagery from Daniel—which relies on Jeremiah—just as Jesus also did.
You speak of Judaism but in first century there was no -ism to hate. When Jesus came, Jews were a people, God’s chosen nation. This was not about a system of belief. The former—not the latter—was rejected. This is stated quite explicitly! The language you use betrays the anachronism of your belief.
…which is why the Messianic prophecies are taken out of context, why Isaiah 7:14 alone is inspired out of all of Isaiah 7, for instance.
Perhaps inspired by the Jesus Seminar, I see that you are arbitrarily picking and choosing what scriptures you consider to be inspired and which you do not. I’m sure that this allows you to pick-and-choose scripture to justify whatever belief you personally want to believe.
Well, that kind of argument won’t fly on this blog, as we categorically reject special pleading. You are going to have to do much better than that if you want to be taken seriously.
“I’ll answer this for Jethro.”
You probably shouldn’t have. You’ve only hurt his case.
Peace,
DR
What I’ve given is literally the teaching of Ptolemy the Valentinian as I remember it (its been a decade since I last read it). Anyone who reads Isaiah 7 in context knows its contextually about God defending Ahaz’s life against Samaria and Syria by sending the King of Assyria to conquer all 3 of them. Contextually it has nothing to do with the Messiah. Only verse 14 does and only because Matthew cites it as such. Ptolemy says that God hijacked the prophets and forced them to give prophecies of Christ that are as a result out of context with the rest. And so to the “Gnostic” only those parts of the Old Testament are inspired of God. As for the apostles saying the text was inspired, they say that when quoting these exact parts.
Jack Smitty,
Is it your assertion, then, that Ptolemy the Valentinian (as you remember it) was correct?
How do you avoid the charge of this being an “argument from silence?”
Peace,
DR
[Note: this is a response to this comment]
Bruce,
I agree with your understanding of Gnosticism, including that it has essentially nothing to do with Judaism (except insofar as historical Christianity has been directly influenced by Judaism).
After reading the article you linked me, I can see that we do, in fact, largely agree. It is interesting that 1 John 4:1-3 completely repudiates the Gnosticism that you described here:
Your “Note” is especially on point:
I regard the entirety of mainstream church Christianity – Orthodox, Roman and Protestant – as Both being strands of a mistaken framing of Christianity within abstract and deistic (i.e not personal and theistic) pagan philosophical conceptualizations.
I wonder if you include historical Anabaptism in this (i.e. not the institutionally captured versions we see today).
…and also historical Gnosticism proper (including its last efflorescence with the Cathars)…
This is an interesting claim in that I’ve already written about this and come to a (possibly) different conclusion. I wrote about that here.
What we know about the Cathars—including the Albigensians—is distorted. I examined the claim that the Albigensian Cathars were dualists, and could not find primary source evidence to support it. Indeed, the primary sources I examined told the opposite story.
From what I can tell, the accusations of being dualist Gnostics was slander by their enemies, and not based on their actual stated beliefs. (FWIW, before the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library, people thought the same of Irenaeus’s criticism of Gnosticism)
I could have spent more time researching this, but I remain highly skeptical that historical Gnosticism was found in the various pre-Reformation, anti-Roman sects (e.g. Paulicians, Cathars, Bogomils, Albigensians, Waldensians)
Perhaps you have better evidence than I do? Unfortunately most of the evidence exists outside of the English language.
…[Voegelin] called “Gnosticism” – but which had only the vaguest selective similarity to the beliefs of actual Gnostics.
I don’t know where the source of this information is coming from, but my conclusion is that it is inverted from reality. So when Ed Hurst says something like this…
It’s all colored with the traditional Western style of Germanic Post-Enlightement morality. In essence, Modern American Christianity is a reworking of the old Gnosticism.
…I just scratch my head. I’m perplexed as to how Gnosticis could produce Germanic Post-Enlightenment morality (perhaps Kant, Nietzsche, Hegel, Marx, Freud, Heidegger, etc.?) rooted in the Enlightenment ideals—reason, individual rights, and secularism—when these ideals are opposite of old Gnosticism.
Peace,
DR
Pingback: Exploring Gnosticism: Part 5 - Derek L. Ramsey