Orthodox Gnosticism

The Gnostic-Creationist Schism

The high tide of the conflict between Gnostics and creationists occurred in the mid 2 nd century with the arrival of Valentinus and Marcion. At that time, the Gnostics and the creationists apparently finalized their schism after a decades-long controversy within the important congregation at Rome. This event began during the time of Pope Hyginus, as the ancient histories record: Valentinus came to Rome in the time of Hyginus (136-140 AD), flourished under Pius (140155 AD), and remained until Anicetus (155-166 AD). Cerdon, who was Marcion's predecessor, also arrived in the time of Hyginus. Where was Marcion?... Where was Valentinus?... These men did not live long ago, but primarily in the reign of Antonius (138-161 AD, Roman Emperor), and they at first believed in the doctrines of the Catholic Church, and were in the congregation at Rome, until the papacy of the blessed Eleutherus (174-189 AD), when they were expelled more than once, on account of their ever restless curiosity with which they infected the membership. Notice how long these two men were in the Catholic Church before they were excommunicated! They were members of the Roman congregation for over 30 years before they were finally kicked out! One must ask why they were tolerated for so long for if they were here today, and if they were to espouse today the same doctrines that they espoused back then, they would find themselves expelled much more quickly than in 30 years. The best explanation for this, I believe, is that the Gnostics and the creationists existed side by side within the Orthodox-Catholic Church, and that only late in the 2nd century did the creationists gain such a solid grip on the Church that they were able to label the Gnostics as "heretics" and thereby excommunicate them. This underscores that Gnostic beliefs about the origins of the cosmos were considered legitimately apostolic in the earliest times, for if they were not, the creationists would not have had such a difficult time expelling them. Only after several generations had past could they garner the support necessary to expel them once and for all. Valentinus and Marcion were the most influential Gnostic teachers bar none. They were a serious threat to the creationist doctrine, as the ancient creationist historians give witness, for these historians spilled a tremendous amount of ink in an effort to discredit especially these two. Valentinus and Marcion adamantly opposed any notion that a good God had created the universe. Instead, they insisted that a wicked and foolish god had created the universe.

The Big Bang in a Gnostic Allegory The texts found at Nag Hammadi record an allegory on the origin of the universe which is similar to the scientific understanding of the Big Bang. Here it is: Pistis-Sophia wanted to get pregnant without a male counterpart the result was matter, and it was like an aborted fetus. In the form of plasma, it came forth like an arrogant and ferocious lion. It was a she-male hermaphrodite, because it came from matter, and when it opened its eyes, it saw an endless supply of matter, so it arrogantly stated "I am God, and there is no other." But it sinned against everything eternal when it said this, and so the voice of purity responded, "You are wrong, Samael," which

means god of the blind who is also called Saklas, which means retard. And the voice above said, "Man exists, and so does the Son of Man."

The parallels with the scientific understanding of the Big Bang are sublimely hidden in this metaphorical allegory. According to science, there was a seemingly endless supply of matter after the Big Bang. Likewise, in the Gnostic story, there was a seemingly endless supply of matter after the birth of the cosmic demiurge. According to science, the Big Bang resulted from a singularity, not a duality, and there is no explanation before it. Likewise, in the Gnostic allegory, matter resulted from a single person conceiving offspring alone, not according to usual nature, which requires female and male together in duality, and there is no explanation for how such a thing could happen. Another Gnostic passage records that "the primordial matter was cast out like an abortion," and that it "flowed away" from its origin, being "hurled away from itself." Yet the matter was still "in the primordial void, and was part of it." This sounds a lot like what science tells us about the Big Bang namely that matter was "hurled away from itself" in the Big Bang, yet matter is still within the "primordial void," that is, within the empty space of the universe. You are probably thinking that this allegory is outlandishly disgusting. But ancient peoples routinely used outlandishly disgusting myths to relate metaphorical abstract truths. The abstract truths conveyed by this particular myth are very much in line with evolutionary science. Consider these points: The abortion of the demiurge is a metaphor for how the cosmos was conceived in error; and also that life is born from the sacrifice of juveniles, as natural selection requires, for only if the unfit juveniles are killed before they procreate can survival of the fittest "improve" the gene pool. Therefore, since survival of the fittest is the governing principle of life, and since it requires the sacrifice of children, it is fitting that the universe is metaphorically called an aborted fetus. The abortion analogy was apparently also used to incite outrage. Several ancient writings indicate that the early Christians found the practice of abortion outrageous and wrong. Jeremiah the Prophet had condemned it in the Old Testament. Barnabas, Mathetes, and the Didache had condemned it during or shortly after the New Testament period. Hence, the Gnostics attempted to transfer this feeling of outrage to creation by employing the analogy, in order to compel their creationist opponents to feel outrage and disgust toward the cosmos and toward its creator. That the demiurge is blind is a metaphor for how the world is dominated by cruel injustice and random misfortune for everywhere, car accidents, typhoons, and asteroid collisions destroy the innocent. It's as if the supposedly Almighty God were a blind Judge with no sense of justice and no ability to perceive right from wrong. Therefore, the demiurge who created the universe is called Samael, which means "blind god." That the demiurge is retarded is a metaphor for how flawed the universe is. Most of it is either too hot or too cold, or just too full of empty space to support anything living. If there

were any "intelligent design" involved in the creation of this universe, it must have been extremely retarded, for the universe is full of wasted space and material. That the demiurge is arrogant is a metaphor for how the universe is pointlessly huge despite being so worthless, for it is grand in size, yet so little of it is useful or inhabitable. That matter was born from Pistis-Sophia, the youngest of the aeons, is a metaphor for ignorance and indiscretion, for in youth there is both ignorance and indiscretion. Her lack of knowledge and discretion caused her to conceive that which she later decided to abort. Afterwards, Sophia repented and tried to undo the damage she had done. Below are some quotes from the historians and Nag Hammadi texts: Sophia wants to show the cosmos that matter was born from an error named after blind arrogance and stupidity. The material of the primordial empty universe was flushed out like an aborted fetus. After they created Adam, they left him for dead, because he was like a miscarriage with no life in it. She did not have sex, but when she was alone she started touching herself. Sister Sophia is a whore (because she screwed up when she conceived the cosmos). Even the Bible itself adds weight to this, saying, "God thinks the Sophia of this cosmos is stupid."

For being such a vulgar and outlandish little fairy tale, the Gnostic creation myth is actually very compatible with science. Both science and Gnosticism present the universe as an aimless mass of rubbish. The creator god, the would-be "great architect," is nothing but a blind and arrogant mental retard, and matter is the seeping ooze from his mother's attempt to abort him. Does this metaphor not fit our universe so pointlessly filled with nothing but cold dead rock, burning poisonous gas, and worthless empty space? In these terms, the Christian Gnostics knowingly and willingly committed the most obscene blasphemies against the creator and against all creation, God bless them. But what they did unknowingly was to prophesy allegorically concerning the true nature of the cosmos before science had discovered it. Although they blasphemed all creation, they never blasphemed Christ. They only blasphemed the god below Christ, which is the demiurge, together with his blundering perverted angels, which are the archons. It was these who created the cosmos.
The Gnostic's success in assaulting the creationist belief system remained unparalleled for almost 1,900 years. It was not until Darwin that a worthy challenge rose again. But unlike the secular nature of Darwin's evolutionary science, these Gnostics were rooted in Christianity. By combining the science of Charles Darwin with the Christian Gnostic theory of origins, we may drive a wedge between Christians and the creationist heresy, thereby producing a synergy with which to nail a stake in the heart of creationism.

Modern Gnostics? Some may ask, if the Gnostics were so great, then why aren't they here with us today? There are some who call themselves "Gnostics" today. However, these often identify with New Age and neo-pagan philosophies, which see human nature as infinitely capable and the pleasures of the flesh as basically good. In contrast, ancient Gnostic philosophy hinged upon the fundamental premise that the cosmos and everything in it is evil including all flesh and even Mother Nature herself. Consequently, they degraded human dignity and the pleasures of the flesh together with all creation. In this respect, the ancient Gnostics are nothing like modern New Agers, neo-pagans, or self-styled neo-Gnostics.

Why Did Gnosticism Die Out? The ultimate demise of the Gnostics occurred because they were driven underground and eventually brought into the Orthodox-Catholic fold. This happened in the 4th and 5th centuries. However, they appear to have suffered a decline even before then, for by the time of Constantine, they were no longer regarded as the most dangerous "heresy." The Arians had taken that distinction from them this latter group having an entirely different origin and set of beliefs than the Gnostics. The reasons for the Gnostics' decline in the 3rd century were due to a number of factors. For one thing, their creationist opponents were able to pin them with a large number of accusations, including dependence on Greek philosophy and mythology, along with forgery, and a general lack of cohesion because of incessant schisms among themselves. Whether or not these accusations were true is not central to this discussion, but for what it's worth, here are a few: Their doctrines are derived from Greek wisdom, from the conclusions of philosophical systems, from wanna-be mysteries, and from the vagaries of astrologers. Those Gnostics who espoused reincarnation did not get that idea from divine revelation, but rather got it from Plato. They employ an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which are forgeries they made themselves, in order to beguile undiscerning people who are ignorant of the true scriptures. They differ wildly among themselves concerning both doctrine and tradition. To be considered enlightened among them, one must invent new doctrines every day. They just dream up new things that nobody has ever thought of before. All these (heretics) are of a much later date than the bishops to whom the Apostles committed the churches. Gnostic opinions are founded upon the opinions of Greek philosophers who came before them and upon mystical rites.

Valentinus' doctrines are not based on the holy scriptures, but on the teachings of Plato's and Pythagoras' followers.

They even accused the Gnostics of basing certain doctrines on a comedy act. Whether or not these accusations were true, the opponents of the Gnostics published them widely, and they became the generally accepted history for nearly 1,800 years. They believed that flesh is intrinsically evil, and this in turn caused most of them to conclude that Christ could not have been flesh. These two doctrines caused them difficulty, the first because it limited their membership growth by means of procreation, and the second because it was ill-supported by apostolic authority. Concerning Gnostic opinions on procreation, the following quotes from Nag Hammadi and the histories yield the following: Saturninus believed that marriage and procreation came from Satan, as did also Marcion and Tatian. John saw what descended upon the Jordan and understood that the age of sexual reproduction was ending. Woe to you who enjoy sexual contact with women and the filth of intercourse with them! Woe to you who are slaves of the flesh, for you will find trouble! If a male virgin gets horny, he falls into filth. The snake worshippers say that men should be asexual because sex between men and women is extremely evil and filthy. Whoever in this cosmos has sex with women looses the truth.

Needless to say, any church that embraces such teachings must have a crackerjack evangelist team to perpetuate itself, because it won't gain any new members from the biological processes of its existing membership. It's like the old joke, "Evolution will take care of the creationists," where the punch line follows, "Yes it will they have more kids than atheists do, so evolution will indeed take very good care of them." A low Gnostic birthrate may have been a key reason for their demise, just as atheism is declining in many nations today for the same reason. Gnostics agreed with other Christians that Christ was in some way divine; however, some of them had a hard time believing he became flesh. Those who rejected that Christ was flesh were called "Docetae," after the Greek word dokeo which means "to only appear to be" for they believed Christ only appeared to suffer on the cross, but did not actually suffer. These Docetae were not necessarily affiliated with the Gnostics at first, for they first appear in the letters of Ignatius, who wrote about 100-110 AD, and Ignatius did not identify them as Gnostics. Ignatius castigated the Docetae as heretics. In contrast, Ignatius also wrote cordial letters to various churches founded by Apostles, not attacking them as he did the Docetae.

This suggests that the earliest apostolic communities did not subscribe to the doctrine of the Docetae, for if they did, Ignatius would have reprimanded them directly. Moreover, in the earliest undisputed writings of the New Testament, namely Mark, Luke, Matthew, and the letters of Paul, there is no trace of doectism. Instead, we see everywhere an assumption that Christ was flesh and blood, and no hint of a dispute on the issue. Only in the very latest books of the New Testament, those written by John in his old age, can docetism be noticed, yet here, John calls the Docetae "antichrist." For these reasons, one might rightfully doubt that the Docetae represented the true teachings of Jesus and his earliest followers. Yet by the mid 2nd century, the two leading Gnostics, Valentinus and Marcion, had adopted the doctrine of the Docetae as their own. This may have been a contributing factor to their eventual demise, since docetism is not really feasibly apostolic in the same way that the Gnostic theory on origins is. How closely were the Gnostics tied to the Docetae? If the ancient sources are any indication, there were many Gnostics who rejected it. Hippolytus records a schism among the Gnostics over docetism. According to him, there was an Italian school which taught that Jesus Christ possessed an animal body, that is a biological body, and there was an Asian school which taught he had a body of spirit. From the Gnostics' own words found at Nag Hammadi, we can discern the Gnostics were indeed divided on the issue, for some of the texts embrace docetism while others make statements that are incompatible with it. Three of the earliest texts found at Nag Hammadi are decisively incompatible with docetism - The Gospel of Thomas, The Apocryphon of James, and The Treatise on the Resurrection. Here is what they say: Jesus said, "I manifested myself in the flesh." If you keep my cross and my death in mind, you will have life. He existed as flesh being both human and divine, so that he could conquer death because he was the Son of God, yet also restore the pleroma because he was the Son of Man.

These statements are contrary to the idea that Jesus only appeared to be flesh and only appeared to suffer. Rather, they indicate that the authors of these texts believed in an orthodox interpretation of Christ's passion. The Tripartite Tractate also asserts that Christ had a body, that he was human, and that he died. The Gospel of Truth both rejects docetism and alludes to Paul in the same sentence: "After he took off his fleshly covering, he put on incorruptibility." Other Nag Hammadi texts indicate the same: Some will say that he was not flesh even though he did come as flesh; that he did not feel pain even though he did feel pain; that he did not rise from the dead even though he did rise from the dead. Traditions from all over the world testify otherwise. Christ is God and Master. As God, he became a man on your behalf. He shattered the shackles of hell.

Jesus descended to be crucified. He wore the crown of thorns and regal cape. He was nailed to a tree and buried in a sepulcher. Then he rose from the dead. Comrades, Jesus is not accustomed to suffering like this, but we have suffered because our mother sinned, and so he came to suffer as we do. This last quote is from The Letter of Peter to Philip, which deserves special attention. Notice the phrase, our mother sinned. This is an implicit acceptance of the Gnostic creation myth regarding the sin of Sophia, who conceived the cosmos in her womb and then aborted it. Here we see clearly an acceptance of Gnostic cosmology coupled with a rejection of docetic Christology. A reading of the full text confirms this, for it is unabashedly Gnostic in explaining the pleroma of the aeons and how they came about from the mother in error, and how the demiurge and his archons thwart us, and how flesh is evil. Yet the text also records Jesus saying, "I descended into a mortal body," and Peter adds, "he suffered for us." Hence, The Letter of Peter to Philip is a clear example of how some Christians combined a Gnostic cosmology with an Orthodox-Catholic Christology.

The Reconciliation of Gnosticism and Orthodoxy Evolutionary history is comprised of a meaningless series of vicious flesh eating animals, one right after another, who have no knowledge of the God of Love. It is wholly incongruous, even blasphemous, to imagine that the God of Love is the same God as the creator who put in motion such barbaric savagery for all these millions of years. Therefore, in light of science and the laws of evolution, it is unreasonable to accept the creationist model. The Gnostic model concerning origins is much more reasonable, and should become the new model that Christians accept. We have seen that there existed among the early Christians two schools of thought an Orthodox-Catholic school and a Gnostic school. Each was equally ancient. Each held apostolic authority. Each was and continues to be a legitimate heir to the legacy of Jesus Christ. Yet each had a fatal flaw. On one hand, the Orthodox-Catholic school came to accept the creationist position on origins. On the other hand, the Gnostic school came to accept a radical hatred of the flesh which denied Christ his humanity. Both were incorrect. Yet both were correct in other ways. The Orthodox-Catholic school was correct about the humanity and suffering of Christ, and the Gnostic school was metaphorically correct about origins. If we take the best of both, and abandon the worst of both, we arrive at the true doctrine of Jesus Christ that is, the cosmos is a horrible mistake, and Christ came in the flesh to save us from it. But what do we do about Genesis 1?