Abraxas is a well known anguiped (snake legged) figure, associated with Gnosticism and possibly with Alexandrian esoteric Judaism . It played a role at various points in the history of Christianity as a symbol of heresy, for example as a seal of certain Templar individuals and local chapters. The "Snake-Legged Goddess" or "Tendril-Legged Goddess" is another, earlier, anguiped divine figure associated with Scythian origin legends. Given that their respective followers co-existed within the context of Hellenistic religious culture before and during the Roman Empire, assuming a possible connection seems to make sense. However, I was not able to find any source making the connection explicitly. Are there any?

This paper [*The Priority of Mandaean Tropes Generally Considered Derivative of Christian and Islamic Influences*](https://www.academia.edu/32005295/The_Priority_of_Mandaean_Tropes_Generally_Considered_Derivative_of_Christian_and_Islamic_Influences) seems to show that [Mandaenism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaeism) influenced a lot of Christianity and Islam, as we see many parallels between the texts, instead of the reverse claim (which the paper calls "standard model") that Islam and Christianity influenced the *Ginza Rabba* text. **How would Christianity evaluate whether this claim is correct?**

According to Gospel of Judas, why did Judas hand over Jesus to Roman authorities? Did Jesus asked him himself to do so? If yes, then why did Jesus needed this? Did he just want to escape the material world ASAP?

I read that claim in an article written by A.M. Toplady (reproduced in a 2020 Christian magazine.) Toplady (1740-1778) did not go on to give his reasons for that claim, apart from adding, "An Antinomian looks to be justified by his works." Toplady is best known for hymns, such as *Rock of Ages* and verse 2 shows his view on the matter of works: "Not the labour of my hands can fulfil thy law's demands. Could my zeal no respite know, could my tears forever flow, all for sin could not atone. Thou must save, and thou alone." His article, however, was dealing with text from the Bible letter of James, written before the end of the first century. Therefore, ***I'm asking this question to those who know about ancient Gnosticism circa the end of the first century, and who also know about Antinomianism.*** Please bear in mind that I'm *not* looking for any opinions about Gnosticism and/or Antinomianism, whether they are good, bad or indifferent religious beliefs. **I'm simply wanting to know why Toplady could have made the claim, "Gnostics were the Antinomians of their day."** What basis might he have had for that?

I recently read some very well-known gnostic writings that are under the name of "Gospel of Judah Iscariot" and "Gospel of Thomas", but they aren't written by Judah or Thomas. I don't really know what Gnosticism is. I read something about God having more "emanations", some "aeons", a "bad Demiurge" that created us. This doesn't make sense. I searched on Google about this. I understand that Gnosticism is a religion that add on top of Christianity 4000 years old Greek philosophy. I didn't really understands. What did those people that wrote those 2 gospels in the name of Judah and Thomas believe about Jesus. And the so called "Gospel of Judah Iscariot" seemed to me like a big heresy, but "Gospel of Thomas" didn't seem to be heretic or gnostic, in the text of it is presented a bit of the apostle's life like it is presented in the New Testament, there are presented some of Jesus's statements about loving enemies, helping poor. I didn't see anything about God "emanations", "aeons" and a "bad Demiurge", the "Gospel of Judah Iscariot" was full of those aberrations, so I don't understand why scholars call the "Gospel of Thomas" as being gnostic.

It is often claimed that the Gnostics had apostolic succession. In particular, Clement of Alexandria is often used to show that the Gnostics claimed apostolic succession. > Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, > the interpreter of Peter. Likewise they allege that Valentinus was a > hearer of Theudas. And he was the pupil of Paul. For Marcion, who > arose in the same age with them, lived as an old man with the > younger [heretics]. And after him Simon heard for a little the > preaching of Peter. (Source ) Is it true that the Gnostics had apostolic succession? And if so, what is so special about it if even the Gnostic had claim to it?

There is ample evidence that early Christianity was socioeconomically very inclusive, being made up of the poor, the wealthy, men, women, the educated, uneducated, etc. For example, Pliny the Younger writes regarding the arrest of Christians: > ...for a great many individuals of every age and class, both men and > women, are being brought to trial, and this is likely to continue. It > is not only the towns, but villages and rural districts too which are > infected through contact with this wretched cult. Also, some data regarding ethnicity and class can be inferred from the names in the NT. Is there any information in the writings of the Church Fathers, secular historians, the NT itself, or elsewhere, that can help us understand the socioeconomic makeup of early Gnostic Christian sects? Was their membership also very inclusive, or more limited to certain areas, such as cities rather than rural areas, or primarily made up of a certain class, gender, educational background, etc? ---------- I am aware that most NT scholars believe full-blown Christian Gnosticism occurred only after the first century. Of course, this might vary from sect to sect, however I'm intentionally leaving this question broad because I wouldn't know which sect to ask about if I had to limit the question, and I don't want to post a separate question asking about each Gnostic heresy.

I like to research religions and recently I started studying Kabbalah, the Jewish mysticism. They claim that they've unlocked the key to the "upper worlds" and a few more claims such as there's no satan, no free will, no sin etc. even though some of their teachings makes sense yet the structure of their idea is... questionable! What is Christianity's take on Kabbalah?

Cathars are known for having been a community which did not believe good things about the Old Testament deity and were based in the Languedoc region of today's southern France around the 12th century. Given that most Christian denominations in existence base their beliefs partly in the Old Testament deity, I was wondering, did the Cathars use as a guide any books of the Bible and if so, which? Were those books different than the ones we know? Did they have additional gospels besides the canon used by most Christians today?

I'm aware that the rise of Gnosticism was after the New Testament was written – but it would seem that a lot of the ideas on which it was built were floating around at the time. (Particularly Greek ideas about the uncleanness of the body contrasted with the purity of the mind/spirit). Particularly in 1 Cor 15, but also more generally across the NT – how does the Bible rebut the ideas of Gnosticism? (i.e., that Jesus and subsequent resurrection was physical).

I read that these verses (over other texts that are clearly gnostic but not attributed as such) are considered gnostic: ST. PAUL TO THE EPHESIANS - Third letter > For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against > principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this > darkness > ST. PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS (2, 6 - 8) > Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, > not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; > but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God > predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of > the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it > they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; My question: Why is Saint Paul considered gnostic? --- Consider these various examples of people forwarding or confronting the idea: * The Gnostic Paul - Book by Elaine Pagels * Was the Apostle Paul a Gnostic? * The Gnostic Paul - Random Blog post * Paul the Gnostic Opponent of Peter Not an Apostle of Historic Christianity (PDF)

How does the Calvinist notion of predestination differ from that of the Valentinian Gnostics' predestination? There are several sources outlining the Valentinian Gnostic system (anti-heretic "church fathers" like Ireneaus), but it basically had three classes: 1. materials (Greek *hylics* or sometimes *somatics*, the non-elect) 1. soul-lys (Greek *psuchics*, the partially or temporarily elect) 1. spirituals (Greek *pneumatics*, the true elect or those both elected and granted perseverance). What further information is there on the relationship between these two systems? Is there evidence that Calvin borrowed from the Valentinian system through his study of the "church fathers"? did that borrowing come mediated through Augustine?

Gnosticism was an early Christian sect that taught mysticism, rejected Jewish scriptures, such as the Hebrew Bible, and felt that Jesus' teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection were mere appearances. Jesus' true mission, they said, was to teach mysticism to his few devotees. One of those teachings was in the belief (if we compare it to Zorostriaiam which is similar) of an imperfect creator (Ahriman) who created the world and humans and that of the supreme G-d (or, Wise Lord) who sent Jesus (Zoroaster) to teach the ancient, mystical teachings. As a result, the Gnostics and bishops held many debates, no less fierce as debates between later Christian Catholics and Jews. For example, many bishops called Gnostics "empty ditches" which lacked water of truth flowing from within. The Gnostics similar called the bishops "wolves" who preyed on Christ's flock. The early bishops struggled against Gnostic "ravings," barring Gnostic writings from the New Testament. **My question is:** Where can one find debate(s) of early Gnostic and Chaotolic writings? I am aware of the Disputation at Barcelona between Jewish sage Nachmanides and Jewish convert to Christianity, Pablo Christiani in 1263 before the king of Aragon, James I. Do similar recorded debates exist between Gnostics and bishops? These were also the views of the pagan Greek philosopher, Plato. Or, we might compare the Gnostic and bishops' feud to the ancient Jewish sects called Sadducees and Pharisees who argued over the authenticity of Oral Law (Oral Torah).

My question comes out of a discussion on this question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/75762/how-do-jehovah-s-witnesses-explain-the-unique-wording-of-colossians-115-17-in-t For reference, here is the passage (1971 revision): >15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things, and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist. (Colossians 1 NWT) Jehovah's Witnesses say Jesus is "a god." That is, a lesser god; yet one who has a role in creation: >In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. >(John 1:1 NWT) >The last book of the Bible identifies Jesus as “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Revelation 3:14) Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation.” That is so “because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible.” (Colossians 1:15, 16) Yes, Jesus was the only one directly created by God himself.1 Jehovah ("God") created Jesus ("a god") who was the means by which all other things were created. Conceptually, this is much the way a Gnostic would describe God's work of creation. For example, Valentinus was a Christian Gnostic theologian who attributed creation to a Demiurage: >The image of Demiurge usually portrayed in the Sethian texts is negative. Apart from anti-Jewish and anti-Christian polemic there are some internal reasons for this, specifically the function of the psychic (soul) element represented by the Demiurge. This element is not, as for Valentinians and other Christian Gnostics, the seat of free will, but a moment (that of animation) in the hylic dimension and, like it, destined to perdition. This is the radical difference from the Valentinian Demiurge, the latter being a representative of the psychic element that is also called upon to participate in the work of salvation.2 Valentinus' second century mythology was complex, but the idea of a Demiurge who created the material world can be found 500 years earlier in Plato's Socratic dialogue Timaeus (c. 360 BC)3 How do Jehovah's Witnesses differentiate Jesus' role in creation from that of a Demiurge? ----- 1. Watchtower Online Library 2. Giovanni Filoramo, *A History of Gnosticism*, translated by Anthony Alcock, Basil Blackwell, 1990, p. 84 3. Demiurge

For the record, I do not believe Calvinists are cryto-Valentinians. I do not believe Calvinists are Gnostics, so please understand my question knowing I am not trying to paint anyone in a good or bad light. **What specific beliefs do Calvinists (or proto-Calvinists like Augustinians) specifically take issue with in Valentinian's predestinarian system?** So far, I've only been able to find that the Valentinians believed there were three different classes of men with different natures. I believe Calvinists teach that the saved and the damned have the same human nature, but I'm not sure.

I've seen in a few places the Gospel of Thomas described as Gnostic and thus heretical. I've seen people dismiss it as heretical but never going into the details of why that is the case. Why is the gospel of Thomas considered heretical? I have read the text, it seemed quite interesting to me, shares much of the material from other gospel texts and as the form is a sayings gospel leaves much to interpretation; I don't think it would be difficult for even pretty stringently orthodox people to interpret it to their satisfaction. Although you could construe it in a number of ways, you could say that for lots of works that are considered canonical. It certainly doesn't seem any more different from the synoptic gospels than is the Gospel of John. The dating might be questionable but that doesn't make it doctrinally unsound surely otherwise Ephesians could not be canonical. The only saying that even seems to hint at gnosticism to me is 114 and that is known to be a later addition to the text. To be clear I'm referring to the sayings gospel not the infancy gospel.

In his article "Mysticism in the Early Church, in *The American Journal of Theology*, Aurther C McGiffert says, >Closely connected with Paul, John, and Ignatius are the Gnosics, the most famous heretics and the ablest thinkers of the second century who represent the later Platonic tendency in philosophy. Gnostics, like all the later Platonists, were dualists, primarily interested in the redemption of the spirit of man from his material environment; and they became Christians because they were convinced that in Christianity were to be found as nowhere else the means of such redemption. Christ, they believed, in revealing God to man, had placed redemption within the grasp of those capable of receiving and understanding his message, and through the knowledge imparted by him he had brought about a union with God, which means ultimately a complete and permanent break with the flesh and the world and an eternal life in the spiritual realm. Is there any historical evidence that Gnosticism disappeared because Gnostics converted to Christianity?

My background is not religion, it's closer to philosophy, so I lack necessary context. Gnosticism translates to 'knowledge', so what is it a Gnostic 'knows'? What is an example of Gnosticism or Gnostic arguments?

It is not uncommon when talking to someone about the authenticity or composition of the Biblical canon to for the subject of the so-called "lost" gospels to be brought up. An explanation of the process used to determine canon, specifically the criteria the criterion of cohesion with the rest of the Bible can, among the more skeptical, bring about the claim that the early church was guilty of suppressing documents showing accounts that "show the truth" about the claims of Jesus or show Him in a negative light, etc. One would expect, if the claims at truth are indeed valid, these pseudepigraphal writings would show some degree of harmony within themselves, both the early (The Gospel of Judas, for instance) and the late (Gospel of Thomas). This is equally true for Old Testament non-canonical books such as The Book of Enoch. Harmony within these writings would support the truth claim and make a reasonable argument for their content. Disharmony amongst themselves would lessen the credence and support those which are harmonious as being true. Therefore, to what degree is there harmony among the books left out?

Towards the end of the New Testament writing, the heresy of [gnosticism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism) was one of the chief "false teachings" against which Paul and the other writers were contesting. Could someone present some of the chief teachings of the Gnostics that were "false teachings," and for extra credit, identify any of these beliefs that may be present in certain denominations today.