Talk:Gnosticism

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 July 2020 and 14 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ikhan94 (article contribs).

edit summary explanation of a recent edit

Deleted a sentence that wrongfully claimed there're 4 rivers in the Quran with the respective reference. Nagel et al makes it clear that he uses a reference from external literature e.g. the hadith literature, in this example he uses Sahih Bukhari Tajrid Sarikh & Futuhul-Ghayb. The Quran doesn't support the notion of 4 rivers, as is clear through the word: anhārun= multiple rivers of water, abundance, honey, milk and khamrin (خَمْرٍ) (أَنْهَارٌ). These are evident in Q108:1, Q47:15.

Was in edit summary space - now here as well... copied JarrahTree 07:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Soon to come ... (Origins)

I plan to edit the first para in the section Origins. It reads as if Gnosticism was a religious denomination, but the scholars disagree: Gnosticism is a modern construct somewhat counterparting a certain subgroup of those in the antiquity that called themselves Gnostics. Modern scholars think there were many Gnostic movements, most of the scholars that they share a common denomination of certain beliefs, a few scholars claim there was nothing such. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

"'Gnostic'" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 'Gnostic'. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Minor Point on Valentinus

The current article reads "Valentinianism was named after its founder Valentinus (c. 100 – 180), who was a candidate for bishop of Rome but started his own group when another was chosen." The source for this latter statement being Adversus Valentinianos 4, the point here being that even in the article for Adversus Valentiniaos itself doubt is drawn as to Tertullian's account (the page here ). I am by no means an expert of these matters, but I have encountered a claim that there is evidence suggesting he remained within the church community until his death (1) and even one that says he likely refused the bishop position yet offers no evidence on this point (2). In any case, it seems unlikely to me that a well respected member of the early church community would have 'started his own group' after being passed over out of sheer envy as per Tertullian's account, and it appears there are at least some academic sources contending this. I would like a second opinion of someone more knowledgeable on these matters before making an edit to reflect this contention. 1. 2. Issekinicho (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Right, but we can only write based on the academic consensus however flawed. Wikipedia is not about "truth", whatever it is. Hoeller might be mentioned as a minority opinion, though. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

So-called 'heretics'

This is a fascinating article. Given that the Catholic Church was a three-century later development by the Roman Empire it is not surprising that earlier Gnosticism is then labelled as heretic. We really have no way of knowing what 'real Christianity' is and it surely must be folly to take the exclusivist stance that there is only one true form of Christianity.

It may very well be that there is no definitive singular 'real church'. The mere fact that there are numerous divisions, splits and schisms compounds any attempt at correct identification. On the other hand they could all be valid, as there is potentially no limit to the multifarious facets of the Supreme Being's personality. Indeed each branch of religion may represent a separate aspect.

The dichotomy of illusion/enlightenment versus sin/repentance aside (as I understand it the main difference between Gnosticism and mainstream Christianity) what can be the harm in extra knowledge as long as there is no hurt or damage? Is the Roman Catholic Church frightened of any differing philosophy that has something exceptional to offer? Because I am not a Roman Catholic I fail to see anything heretical, blasphemous, negative or otherwise derogatory about Gnosticism other than it challenges the RCC's monopoly of God. Perhaps that is where I'm missing the point? Ningnongtwit (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)