First off, there's no such a thing as a unified gnostic doctrine. It's relativistic. I may be gnostic and believe in things that contradict other gnostics' beliefs. So who's right, what is the correct gnosticism and how is this determined?
Second, why should one trust the Gnostic gospels over the Church teachings? How do you determine what gospels are true and what's your criteria? You ignored my question about how do you justify that knowledge at all. Gnosticism makes countless claims about the nature of our world and its history and I want to know how are they justified?
How has the hidden knowledge you base your worldview on been preserved through the centuries? And even if we assume it was true, what makes you think it hasn't been tampered with by its enemies (the RCC) who pretty much ruled the world until recently?
Deep dive finds the pearl.
Unless you deep dive in sewers. You'll only find crap then.
I know the book. You've linked it before and I took a look. It's a total mess of word-concept fallacy and wild interpretations of what the Christianity represents.
Again, gnostics have been around for 2000 years and I'd rather read what OG gnostics like Simon Magus, Valentinus, Marcion and Mani had to say and not people centuries later. If you truly cared for the truth, you'd read how their arguments were defeated by their contemporaries - the Early Church Fathers. It's pointless to rehash a 2000 year old debate.
Okay fine, now go study gnosis from all angles and prove him right or wrong.
The point is I don't need to study all of gnosticism to know it's false. I can refute it simply by disproving it's foundational principles like dualism.
Here's an example of a quick refutation of gnosticism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BgDwGHmKc4
First off, there's no such a thing as a unified gnostic doctrine. It's relativistic. I may be gnostic and believe in things that contradict other gnostics' beliefs.
Second, why should one trust the Gnostic gospels over the Church teachings? How do you determine what gospels are true and what's your criteria? You ignored my question about how do you justify that knowledge at all. Gnosticism makes countless claims about the nature of our world and its history and I want to know how are they justified?
How has the hidden knowledge you base your worldview on been preserved through the centuries? And even if we assume it was true, what makes you think it hasn't been tampered with by its enemies (the RCC) who pretty much ruled the world until recently?
Deep dive finds the pearl.
Unless you deep dive in sewers. You'll only find crap then.
I know the book. You've linked it before and I took a look. It's a total mess of word-concept fallacy and wild interpretations of what the Christianity represents.
Again, gnostics have been around for 2000 years and I'd rather read what OG gnostics like Simon Magus, Valentinus, Marcion and Mani had to say and not people centuries later. If you truly cared for the truth, you'd read how their arguments were defeated by their contemporaries - the Early Church Fathers. It's pointless to rehash a 2000 year old debate.
Okay fine, now go study gnosis from all angles and prove him right or wrong.
The point is I don't need to study all of gnosticism to know it's false. I can refute it simply by disproving it's foundational principles like dualism.
Here's an example of a quick refutation of gnosticism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BgDwGHmKc4
Why should one trust the Gnostic gospels over the Church teachings? How do you determine what gospels are true and what's your criteria? You ignored my question about how do you justify that knowledge at all. Gnosticism makes countless claims about the nature of our world and its history and I want to know how are they justified?
How has the hidden knowledge you base your worldview on been preserved through the centuries? And even if we assume it was true, what makes you think it hasn't been tampered with by its enemies (the RCC) who pretty much ruled the world until recently?
Deep dive finds the pearl.
Unless you deep dive in sewers. You'll only find crap then.
I know the book. You've linked it before and I took a look. It's a total mess of word-concept fallacy and wild interpretations of what the Christianity represents.
Again, gnostics have been around for 2000 years and I'd rather read what OG gnostics like Simon Magus, Valentinus, Marcion and Mani had to say and not people centuries later. If you truly cared for the truth, you'd read how their arguments were defeated by their contemporaries - the Early Church Fathers. It's pointless to rehash a 2000 year old debate.
Okay fine, now go study gnosis from all angles and prove him right or wrong.
The point is I don't need to study all of gnosticism to know it's false. I can refute it simply by disproving it's foundational principles like dualism.
Here's an example of a quick refutation of gnosticism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BgDwGHmKc4
Why should one trust the Gnostic gospels over the Church teachings? You ignored my question about how do you justify that knowledge at all. Gnosticism makes countless claims about the nature of our world and its history and I want to know how are they justified?
How has the hidden knowledge you base your worldview on been preserved through the centuries? And even if we assume it was true, what makes you think it hasn't been tampered with by its enemies (the RCC) who pretty much ruled the world until recently?
Deep dive finds the pearl.
Unless you deep dive in sewers. You'll only find crap then.
I know the book. You've linked it before and I took a look. It's a total mess of word-concept fallacy and wild interpretations of what the Christianity represents.
Again, gnostics have been around for 2000 years and I'd rather read what OG gnostics like Simon Magus, Valentinus, Marcion and Mani had to say and not people centuries later. If you truly cared for the truth, you'd read how their arguments were defeated by their contemporaries - the Early Church Fathers. It's pointless to rehash a 2000 year old debate.
Okay fine, now go study gnosis from all angles and prove him right or wrong.
The point is I don't need to study all of gnosticism to know it's false. I can refute it simply by disproving it's foundational principles like dualism.
Here's an example of a quick refutation of gnosticism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BgDwGHmKc4
Why should one trust the Gnostic gospels over the Church teachings? You ignored my question about how do you justify that knowledge at all. Gnosticism makes countless claims about the nature of our world and its history and I want to know how are they justified?
How has the hidden knowledge you base your worldview on been preserved through the centuries? And even if we assume it was true, what makes you think it hasn't been tampered with by its enemies (the RCC) who pretty much ruled the world until recently?
Deep dive finds the pearl.
Unless you deep dive in sewers. You'll only find crap then.
I know the book. You've linked it before and I took a look. It's a total mess of word-concept fallacy and wild interpretations of what the Christianity represents.
Again, gnostics have been around for 2000 years and I'd rather read what OG gnostics like Simon Magus, Valentinus, Marcion and Mani had to say and not people centuries later. If you truly cared for the truth, you'd read how their arguments were defeated by their contemporaries - the Early Church Fathers. It's pointless to rehash a 2000 year old debate.
Okay fine, now go study gnosis from all angles and prove him right or wrong.
The point is I don't need to study all of gnosticism to know it's false. I can refute it simply by disproving it's foundational principles like dualism.
Here's an example of a quick refutation of gnosticism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4dayy7zs8o
Why should one trust the Gnostic gospels over the Church teachings? You ignored my question about how do you justify that knowledge at all. Gnosticism makes countless claims about the nature of our world and its history and I want to know how are they justified?
How has the hidden knowledge you base your worldview on been preserved through the centuries? And even if we assume it was true, what makes you think it hasn't been tampered with by its enemies (the RCC) who pretty much ruled the world until recently?
Deep dive finds the pearl.
Unless you deep dive in sewers. You'll only find crap then.
I know the book. You've linked it before and I took a look. It's a total mess of word-concept fallacy and wild interpretations of what the Christianity represents.
Again, gnostics have been around for 2000 years and I'd rather read what OG gnostics like Simon Magus, Valentinus, Marcion and Mani had to say and not people centuries later. If you truly cared for the truth, you'd read how their arguments were defeated by their contemporaries - the Early Church Fathers. It's pointless to rehash a 2000 year old debate.