The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Gotquestions.org vs "ultimate reconciliation"

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#51

There was a variety of teachings and practices among the second-century gnostics. But they all seemed to agree that Yahweh (the demiurge) is a lesser god who is so arrogant that he thinks he is the supreme God. He was the creator of all things material and soulish. The supreme God is the Father of Christ who is pure spirit, and who leads the gnostic to deny material things and escape the imprisonment of the body, and become pure spirit himself. One group of gnostics believed that they should so entirely deny the flesh, that they should remain virgins and never engage in “filthy koinonia.” Another group of gnostics believed that since the flesh is the creation of the demiurge, it is useless, and the gnostic must eventually escape it and his spirit go to heaven. So since the flesh is worthless, it doesn’t matter what you do with it. For that reason, this group of gnostics engaged in promiscuous intercourse.

It may be that some of the second-century gnostics believed in annihilation of the uninitiated. In the gnostic “Gospel of Philip,” it is written in section 90, “Those who say they will die first and rise again are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing.” This may mean that after death they will not live again.

#53

Agreed Jason :slight_smile: – and a very concrete illustration of this can be found in the beliefs of the Manicheans. Their idea of the most beneficent form of Reincarnation was to not to come back one final time as a perfected human being whose body had become so suffused with spiritual perfection that it could move on to the next stage as it were – but to come back as a mango or a cucumber. These fruit and veg were seen as the most permeable from of matter from which the deity could extract spiritual light and reunite it again with its ‘light self’ because are literally were translucent with the stuff.

I’m just bloody minded in wanting to read the Jonas essay so I can make up my own vaguely informed own mind ( I enjoyed his book ‘The Gnostic Religion’ but he was actually a philosopher rather than a scholarly of sources). All of the essays that Dr Mike cites against Dr Ramelli were written at the end of the last century. As I’ve said, one of them, the ‘Re-thinking Gnosticism’ book does not even mention ‘apocatastasis’.

#54

Actually, I have no interest in proving - or disproving - whether Gnostics did (or did not) have a universal outlook. Nor do I have any interest in contesting any solid theological or philosophical presentation of univeralism. In fact, I’m probably very close - as a hopeful univeralist - to what the actual univeralists believe. It’s just that God has to make it appealing enough, for all to accept it. And give everyone a chance (either in this life, by an explicit or inclusive approach), or in the next (with possible postmortem opportunities), to accept it. And like some Gnostics, have a humane out (i.e. conditional immortality), to those who want no part of it.

It’s interesting that in classical Hindu and Buddhist thought, a person can regress to an animal or vegetable status. But they can bounce back up again - to human status and beyond. So we really are in the realm of speculation, regarding Gnostics teaching reincarnation. How much did they agree with what Pythagoras (and similar Greek philosophers) taught? How much did they agree, with what those from the East taught?

And individual Gnostics - regardless of what they say - have egos. And they will want to create their own variation, of an established Gnostic system. Much like the brilliant disciples of Freud’s inner circle of doctors. Or the Esoteric philosophical likes of “interesting characters”, like Madame Blavatsky, Max Heindel and G.I. Gurdjieff.

But I do feel that there are two disciplines, that can be used - go gain greater understanding of a subject. Especially since we usually approach a subject, with preconceived ideas, what we hope the outcome to be:

Anthropology - especially where someone goes out into the field and lives with the group in question. This I have done with Native American indigenous people and those practicing Zen and Vedanta.
Psychology and statistics - Breaking down complex information into statistical categories, can provide interesting insight - into the bigger picture. I just hope someone initiates this, with the ancient Gnostic movement. The simple questions I formulated in a prior post (in this thread), would be a good starting place.

#55

Agreed Jason – and a very concrete illustration of this can be found in the beliefs of the Manicheans. Their idea of the most beneficent form of Reincarnation was to not to come back one final time as a perfected human being whose body had become so suffused with spiritual perfection that it could move on to the next stage as it were – but to come back as a mango or a cucumber. These fruit and veg were seen as the most permeable from of matter from which the deity could extract spiritual light and reunite it again with its ‘light self’ because are literally were translucent with the stuff.

#56

When I look up Manichean, I quickly find this:

Is this what you are referring to? Are any of the above definitions and elaborations wrong? Why or why not :question:

And what is the source, of the original quote from Jason :question:

Which is also why I’m asking the scholars in question, to quantify via statistical methodology,…what individual Gnostic teachers that taught reincarnation…with those who refused publicly, conventional understanding, of either Greek or Eastern understanding on the topic. Otherwise, there is much confusion in my mind.

I’m simply trying to approach a simple topic subset, from the disciplines of science and statistics. And to discover what percentage of individual ancient Gnostic writers, who publicly advocated reincarnation:

Kept the understanding of Pythagoras (and similar Greek philosophers)
Kept the understanding of Eastern Hindu and Buddhist philosophers
Developed their own variation

How we interpret the statistical results, is another matter entirely.

#57

Those definitions look fine to me Randy :slight_smile:

#58

Randy :slight_smile: – a confession :blush:

Yes they had a thing about oil and certain fruits and vegetables containing many light particles, These were offered to the elect/perfected ones amongst them who realised the light particles by feeding on these (Augustine had a lot to say in ridicule of the Manichean reverence for melons of course). I’ve only read one source about them believing it to be beneficial to be reincarnated as a ‘fruit of light’ – so I cannot verify this as in any way authoritative; but it would make some sense. But it seemed like a light hearted observation to make here. But the main ‘salvation’ problem for the Manicheans is that literal Light has been trapped in a fallen universe rather than human beings created in God’s image as such.

#59

I’ve read Hans Jonas “Origen’s Metaphysics of Free Will, Fall, and Salvation: A ‘Divine Comedy’ now and –surprise, surprise - it does not say that Origen got his universalism from Gnosticism. Jonas was writing in 1970 and takes it for granted that the reconstruction of Origen’s Peri Archon/ De Principiis/On First Principles done by a German scholar in 1911 is authoritative. The reconstruction was made mainly using Jerome and fragments preserved in other Fathers and the Anathemas of the Second Council of Constantinople and viewing Rufinius’ Latin translation with suspicion.

I’ve enjoyed what I’ve read of Jonas in the past and enjoyed this essay too – but wondered at his affirmation that what survives of Jerome’s translation of Peri Archon in a letter must give us the true picture because it is ‘hostile’ – I still can’t get my head around this one :confused: . The essay does not mention apocatastasis in terms of universal salvation of all people as such although Jonas takes it as read that Origen did teach that the final state would be a return to the first state (something that Dr Ramelli contests, along with the other anathemas that Jonas takes as truly representing Origen). Jonas is clear that Origen’s salvation is not a matter of realising Gnosis but of turning the will towards the Good and that the latter is not a Gnostic emphasis. So this essay does not suggest to me that Christian universalism has Gnostic origins – but rather that Origen’s thinking was influenced by the middle Platonic milieu in which he worked (he shares themes like the hierarchy of worlds/ great chain of being with both Neo Platonists and Gnostics for example according to Jonas . No one is doubting this – but Dr Ramelli and contemporary scholars seem to doubt Jonas conclusion about the content of the original Peri Archon. Another issue that Jonas spends time on is the ‘un-orthodoxy’ of Origen’s ‘subordinationist’ Christology’ - which is another issue that I understand Dr Ramelli has cast doubt on.

Regarding Michael A. Williams ‘Rethinking Gnosticism’ – this does not mention apocatastasis at all. The relevant chapter merely challenges the idea that the rigid determinism of say the Valentian Tripartite Tractate – which seems to state that we are born as one of the three types of human beings, one type of which has no hope of salvation – is representative of all Gnosticism. The author argues that when Gnostics were fiercely challenged this was their fallback position against their enemies. However, many texts – and the author sees the Apocryphon of John as central – suggest that we become one of the three types of human beings depending on our response to the preaching of gnosis. This is ‘universalising’ in terms of gnosis begin open to all – but the Apocryphon of John does not assert that all will be saved by Gnosis. Indeed, apostates from Gnosis are destined to eternal damnation – although people of a psychic disposition are given other chances to unhook themselves from the material world via reincarnation.

I note that the nuances of this debate are beyond the comprehension of a layperson like myself. Jonas writing in the 1970’s for example sees the Apocryphon of John as an archaic and marginal text. Michael Williams sees it as central. Hmmmmm… interesting reads however… :smiley: But way beyond the competence of anyone one who is not a scholar in Patristics I think.

#60

Very interesting report, Dick! Thanks!

Randy: I think Sobor quoted me with extra quote marks by accident. I wasn’t quoting anyone.

#61

Thanks Jason :slight_smile:

And that’s right Randy  –

Apologies for any confusion (and I hope I didn’t give offence :blush: ).

I guess what I’ve just read about the gnostic text the Apocryphon of John in ‘Rethinking Gnosticism’ suggests an answer to your question about reincarnation in Gnosticism. It was believed to be a mechanism for giving ample opportunity for those with animal souls to wake up to their heavenly origin. However, salvation through Gnosis was always conditional and could be lost.

It may well be true that the Manicheans who were ‘hearers’ rather than ‘perfect’ looked forward to a reincarnation as a melon or a cucumber as a passport to release of light as food for the elect. However, the Manicheans like the Mandeans were not ‘philosophic schools existing within the church but separate religions of slightly later fruition, incorporating Christian elements as part of their pick and mix syncretism, but mainly heresies within the Zoroastrian faith. I was tickled by this Manichaean idea :smiley: = but I’ve no reason to think that the Gnostic schools that Origen argued with held this belief.

#62

Let’s go with the hypothesis, that the Gnostic belief in reincarnation is conditional - for now. Then we can revisit this topic, along with the latest research and scholarship findings - right after the Chicago Cubs, win the Worlds Series. :smiley:

http://nesncom.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/6a0115709f071f970b0168eadcfeb7970c.jpe