Originally posted by whodey
So what would be a "fair" definition?
Well, it's a real pickle, actually. Trying to define 'Gnosticism' is kind of like defining 'Christian.'
I mean, try to define Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers, Mormons and
Unitarians in three sentences or less. It's not reasonably possible.
Just the same, Gnostics have various divergent strains which have theological differences that are as
profound as, say, those between Quakers and Mormons. Yes, they have points of similarity but they
are vastly overwhelmed by their points of divergence.
The definition is particularly poor in the presumption that all Gnostics believed in the division between
the God of Hebrew Scriptures and the God of the Christian ones. This is not the case, but is a later
development amongst
some branches of Gnosticism. The 'archons/powers' bit is similarly a
highly defined tenet of a particular branch of Gnosticism.
Generally, Gnostics believed in the pursuit of
Gnosis or knowledge through the intimate study of
the
logos and ascetic contemplation. The flesh was not so much evil (at least at first) but a
distraction from the higher spiritual nature (note this is Pauline in flavor). Denial of the flesh --
sexual abstinence, fasting, long desert meditations away from worldly distractions -- was a means
by which one came in contact with the spiritual and thus was blessed with
Gnosis.
That's a fast and dirty definition, but reasonably more consistent than that abominable wikipedia one.
I would describe it as a 'fairer' definition, if not 'fair.' I hope it helps.
Nemesio