I think you could be better informed. First, their were many groups of Gnostic Christians, second, Pagels is an expert on the Gnostics and on early Christianity, third, some Gnostic ideas did make their way into the New Testament, and last, Paul himself was possibly a Gnostic.[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
1. If the gnostics claimed Christ this doesn't make them Christians. People have first been labeled as Christians in Antioch and this label was for the 'orthodox' Christians.
2. Second, what is this supposed to mean? That Pagels is the only one who studied the writings of the gnostics and the early christianity? I am not an expert, yes, but I do know that the gnostics appeared later than the Christians. I told you to read (if you're interested, of course) the letters of Saint Ignacius of Antioch who quoted from the canonical gospels in his letters and who was martyrized in 107 under the command of Roman emperor Traian. Oh, and the gnostics were't persecuted for their beliefs. If Christ would have been a gnostic, no one would have picked on Him.
3. Please, elaborate your analysis on Paul 'the gnostic' (on another thread or in a blog, so that Jack doesn't get upset)I am interested to find out the 'gnostic' elements in Paul. A former Pharisee to become a gnostic (gnostics despised the Jewish God) is quite ridiculous, but hey, who knows?
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]
[/FONT]I disagree. I don’t think Gnosticism existed prior to Christianity and one must recognize that the Gnostic writers considered themselves Christian. It is us who have labeled them Gnostic.[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
I don't think gnosticism existed prior to christianity either, what's your point here? How do you know the gnostic writers consider themselves christians? They didn't even consider their writings as 'gospels', to begin with. It is the media that labeled their writings as gospels. They are called gnostics because of their religion which implies self-knowing (gnosis), self-discovery in order to attain 'salvation' from this world.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]
[/FONT]I will search for the relevant text, but it may take some time. The view of the Christian author I read was that people did not understand that the resurrection was not to be taken literally. As I said, I think this writing was a second century work, but I can’t be certain.[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
When you say Christian you refer to...? Because, I repeat, no orthodox christian could say that the resurrection is not to be taken literally. If there is no resurrection, then christians believe a lie. So, Christianity stand or falls with the resurrection of Christ.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]
[/FONT]There was a great variety of opinion and so I am not certain that one can make a single judgement that will fit all cases. Also, some of the works originally thought to be Gnostic are no longer judged in that light.[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
Well, the later discoveries did throw a light on who the gnostics were. Of course you can not know accurately everything, only make hypothesis but, you know draw some features of the gnostics. And in base of their beliefs, I can say that they have nothing to do neither with the Christians, nor with the Jews.
