Talk:Gnosticism

Sophia in Jewish Gnosticism?

Regarding the line "Jewish Gnosticism with a focus on Sophia was active by 90 A.D." under the subheading "Sophia", I'm having a very difficult time finding a source to verify this information-- I'm considering removing it until such a time as a suitable citation can be found. Though there is a potential string of connections through The Wisdom of Soloman, it was likely written around 50 B.C., so the timing doesn't quite fit. Am I missing anything obvious? I will admit this is not my area of expertise. TempusAstra042 (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not my area of expertise either. I myself wouldn't go fussing around with little details like that about which I don't know much to begin with. Why not leave it for someone with knowledge, or at leat enough interest to research the detail? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The following sentence was just added to that same section by Ctschroeder: "She is occasionally referred to by the Hebrew equivalent of Achamoth." As far as I know this must be some confusion by someone who does not know Hebrew. The word as written above and in the article is not a known/existing Hebrew word, as far as I know. warshy ^(¥¥) 01:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Gnostic Christianity

In a supposedly FACTUAL page about Gnostic Christianity, why has it not been mentioned (in ANY way) that Gnostic Christianity was the ORIGINAL Christianity? Nor is it mentioned that the reason most Gnostic information was destroyed (and Gnostic people killed) was because the Literalists didn't want people to know the truth: that THEY were lying! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diablo666Daemon666 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a pseudo-historical fantasy. The vast amount of physical and written evidence we have shows that proto-Gnostic ideas were perpetuated in some minor Jewish sects in the first century. These then mingled with the mystery cults of the Roman Empire, before being introduced into the distinct religion of Christianity in the early second century. Please stop believing everything you see on the internet and read an actual book about the subject. 20thJune (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

"This is a pseudo-historical fantasy." Really? What about the Bible? "Word of God"! Right! Because a bunch of Jews said so? Nothing to do with propaganda? Right! Everything written a few years ago is now suddenly 'Word of God"! The Church is The Champion Of Truth!

Gnosticism and in general thinking therefore science was forbidden by the church. Remember: IT-IS-FLAT! (on the back of four elephants standing on a turtle...) Even Galileo was imprisoned for daring to have a different opinion. Hundreds of millions were thoroughly brainwashed during the centuries. THAT is a historical fact. As everybody with half a brain can see that. Required: observing, thinking.

These are not mentioned because are not allowed to talk about. Or think about. Required: blind faith and believe everything you are told.

"Gnosticism was a mix of Jewish and early Christian religious ideas." EARLY Christian??? HOW early? The 4700 years old word 'US-TAN' means 'Old Teaching'. That long ago Christianity already was old teaching. In Gilgamesh Utnapistim (or whichever distorted modern version you want to use) means:
UTU: time (DSL 381)
NAB: Sun (DSL 129)
US: OLD (L. 69-2) (USAN: before)
TAN: teaching.
Keys:
DSL: Deimel, Anton, Sumerishe Lexicon, Rome.
L: René Labat, Florence Malbran-Labat MANUEL D'ÉPIGRAPHIE AKKADIENNE
followed by the Sumerian cuneiform sign's-number.
"Please stop believing everything you see on the internet and read an actual book about the subject." Sure. These are some REAL books. For you to read and study. Hope you read French. And German. And Greek. Ancient Greek that is. And old Arabic documents are quite reliable too. If you talk about reading books.

What you call Christianity today is technically 'Judaeo-christian'. NOT Christian. Christianity is thousands of years older. Just one aspect to understand: In Judaeo-Christianity Jews are a chose people. In Christianity EVERYBODY ARE EQUAL. Can not possibly reconcile that.
We are ALL Children of God. This is what Kristos supposedly said "I am a child of God". A supernatural being? No. Just said that HE WAS A CHRISTIAN. For clarity: Christian = KRSTN: KUR-US-TAN. KUR (GUR): umschliesen (DSA 42) (KUR and GUR are phonetically the same. But you do know that don't you?) KAR: Einschliessung (DSA 142)
Key:
DSA: Deimel, Anton Sumerish-Akkadishes Glossar, Rome 1934
IE: The 'old teaching of the circle'. In Sumerian the circle was the sign of a deity. Three circles: GOD
(While this is correct 'technically' I am not arguing that you should take up Christianity. Just that this is what Christians think and believe) Rabbi Saul simply included in Judaism that Kristos is the savior as long as you all accept that Jews are the chosen people. Done and dusted, the rest is history. By today everybody are thoroughly brainwashed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:ONUS

@Shane O'Sullivan the 1, please self-revert and workshop your changes here instead. Like I said several times, it is not acceptable for the live article, as it is poorly written and contains numerous style errors. You are required to gain consensus for contested additions regardless of whether they are verifiable. Remsense ‥ 论 15:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Well what is wrong with my current edit that I did what can be done to keep the source that I added since it's academic one. how can we improve the page together Just asking as newbie, since you have concerns with it thank you.Shane O'Sullivan the 1 (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Self-revert first, and then post your version here. I'm tired of repeating myself. Remsense ‥ 论 16:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I did this is what I want to put. The Gnostic emphasis on an inherent difference between flesh and spirit represented a significant departure from proto-orthodox teachings of Christianity[3] Gnosticism was a mix of Jewish and early Christian religious ideas.[4][5] Some scholars say some gnostic information contains information about the historical Jesus.[6] what do you think?Shane O'Sullivan the 1 (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. Sorry for losing my temper a bit. I'll take a copyediting sweep on this and update the article ASAP. Remsense ‥ 论 16:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I accept your apology it's all good thanks for hearing me out page is all yours now, thanks for keeping my source when you edit it.Shane O'Sullivan the 1 (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

"Gnostics committed sexual assault"

This needs to be supported by reliable sources and without any synthesis between statements. For instance, saying that Carpocratians sexually assaulted women would be WP:SYNTH when the source simply says that Carpocrates thought wives should be held in common. We have no ability, with the source presented, to gauge what Carpocratian women thought about that state of affairs. Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

In fact this source pointedly distinguishes Carpocratianism from Gnosticism, saying While some modern scholars have written briefly on Carpocrates or the Carpocratians (about two dozen scholars since George Salmon’s 1877 entry on Carpocrates in the Dictionary of Christian Biography), almost all have allowed the ancient heresiological categories found in Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria to go unchallenged. Other so-called “heresies,” like Marcionism and Gnosticism, have benefited from studies that do not take the heresiologists at face value. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The carpocratians were undoubtably a Gnostic cult, and they are not the only Gnostic cult which were accused of ritual sexual abuse. The ritual sexual abuse of women was commonplace in Gnosticism as is report by Irenaeus in Against Heresies, which I would consider a reliable source as it’s contents have been proven to be true time and time again by archaeological evidence 20thJune (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Then find sources that support those claims. I don't care what you assert to be undoubtable. I care about what WP:RS says. And the sources provided, as mentioned above, contradict those claims. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, Irenaeus died in 202 AD. Both WP:PRIMARY and WP:AGEMATTERS apply here. And I would bet you dollars to donuts that the words "committed ritual sexual abuse" does not appear in any legitimate translation of Irenaeus's book.

Finally the source above explicitly says that we should not treat classical accounts of heresy as reliable. That's what While some modern scholars have written briefly on Carpocrates or the Carpocratians (about two dozen scholars since George Salmon’s 1877 entry on Carpocrates in the Dictionary of Christian Biography), almost all have allowed the ancient heresiological categories found in Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria to go unchallenged. Other so-called “heresies,” like Marcionism and Gnosticism, have benefited from studies that do not take the heresiologists at face value. is actually for in the cited text. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)