Was Jesus a Gnostic?

First we must define what a genuine Gnostic is. The word comes from ancient Greek (Gnosis), and means Divine (i.e. Mystical / Spiritual) 'experiential' KNOWLEDGE of God (i.e. the “Supreme Power”, or the “ALL”). Thus a genuine Gnostic is one who has such “first-hand” Divine KNOWLEDGE of God (N.B. NOT mere 'beliefs', traditions, dogmas, and 'theories'!). I wish to make it perfectly clear that I am not here referring to any of the numerous heretical sects of gnostics which proliferated during the early centuries of Christianity ~ I refer only to GENUINE SPIRITUAL GNOSIS.

The question is: was Jesus, Himself, a Gnostic? If what we are told in the Bible is actually true, then obviously Jesus must have been a Gnostic (i.e. having Divine 'Knowledge' of God), as must all the other great Prophets and Masters of the Hebrew Bible – not to mention the many other great Masters such as Buddha, Krishna, Mohammed, Zoroaster, Nanak, etc. etc. (if their scriptures are also true).

To believe that God would only reveal Himself to one ‘ethnic clan’ (or ‘race’) of people (i.e. the Hebrews / Jews) demonstrates the typical blindness and ignorance of religion! It is claimed that the “Israelites” are the “chosen people of God.” This claim is, indeed, true – but again we have to understand what this name or “title” actually means in the ancient Hebrew. The term ISRAEL comes from three Hebrew roots: ’ish (= a Spiritual 'being' / 'human'); ra’eh (= 'seeing' / 'vision'); and ’el (= 'God' / 'Supreme Spirit'). Thus, when put together, the word (Is-ra-el) means: “Spiritual one(s) who SEE God.” From this explanation it should be quite obvious that the term does not apply to any particular ‘race’ or ‘clan’ of people, but to ALL those who SEE, and thus KNOW God, i.e. all genuine Gnostics / Mystics! So certainly the true ‘Israelites’ (Seers / Gnostics) are indeed the "chosen people of God"!


Peace, Love, & Understanding

If we accept the definition you outline here, then obviously jesus was at least a gnostic, but of course, if he was a part of god living as a mortal man, but imbued with the holy spirit, then he was much more than a gnostic.
I never realised it, but i guess that definition also applies to me. If im not insane, hallucinating or affected by the fault lines/high tension powerlines in the vicinity, then i guess i fit that classic definition.
Certainly i was "chosen" by god ( grabbed by the scuff of the neck and soundly shaken was more the way i'd put it) rather than in any sense me looking for him, or believing in him.
Certainly i would say that i can see and know god and that he has, on the odd occasion, sent me, apparently, (as far as one's subjective senses can be relied upon:)) prophetic dreams, prophecies and verbal warnings, along with angels and other physical manifestations of his physical presence.

Hmmm! much as i dislike labels, Mystic appeals to me. Im not so keen on gnostic, somehow it doesnt have the same assonance, but yes, mystic. Now where can i get some new business cards made up? MR WALKER- MYSTIC. It has a ring to it.

I think you have to distinguish between the specific mystical group known as "Gnostics" who are usually figured to have arisen around 100 CE around figures like Valentinus, Basilides, Marcion and others; and the term "gnostic" itself, which in the Greek means "knowing" in the form of actual union with the source of knowledge. For the first, Jesus is certainly credited with having created Gnosticism, though there are many pre-Christian influences in their writings also.

Nick

The best I can give is you is yes until the last minute of life when that connection was broken as part of his final test.

I have read the Gnostic Gospels from Nag Hammad and would certainly agree in some respect that Yeshua taught the truth about spirituality. I also believe that the Gospels that made it to the Christian Bible were chosen for their conformity to an increasing desire to control the masses, therefore veiling the altruistic meaning behind what Yeshua taught. For me Gnosticism is the true Christian teachings.

Well the OP is a nice set up that attempts to define religion and makes all religion and definition of Jesus bad unless they accept the OP's definition of gnosis. Jesus though is not the creator of gnosis but in Christian belief, whom Jesus is central too, which Christianity also relies on the Old Testament, it was the serpent who created gnosticism. When he told Eve her eyes would be open like the gods and she could be a god herself. This is what gnosticism is. That the ability to attain divinity is within each of us and we just have to find it. We can do it all alone. True Christianity as Judaism before and currently is about depending on God. We do not wield the power but allow God's power to work through us is the view opposite gnosticism.

Was Jesus a gnostic? I do not think so. Is it hard to follow Jesus by allowing the Spirit to fully guide us? It is. Is it easier to believe that the light is simply within all and we do not have to change much of ourselves? Maybe this is not what gnosticism is all about or even spiritualism but many do take this easier path. They do not want to change for God but want God to change for us.

The etymology of Israel is also simply 'to struggle with God'. This is the etymological definition accepted by most including scholars.

yet supposedly Jesus said and instructed just that.

now Jesus may have been a Gnostic ....... in that same vein so then was Mohammed and any other person with knowledge of God ( which would be most of us)

I'm not sure about that. The Left Hand Path is the path to self-deity, Gnosticism is the truth behind spirituality. Yeshua, I believe followed an old path taken by many others also studied in the Mystery Schools of Egypt and India.

Salaam (Peace)

I agree that Jesus/Yashua/Isa (AS) was a Gnostic, by the definition given by the Thread Maker, and that there may be a "Gnostic stream" that flowed through the Essenes. I believe this is true of all the Prophets and Messengers, which manifested in different ways in different times and places. I've also studied the Gnostic Gospels from Nag Hammadi and believe that there is some of the true spiritual teachings of Jesus (AS) to be found within them, although not 100% authentic. The Islamic equivalent to Gnosticism is "Ma'rifah".

Darklight, may I ask if you are Muslim?

Well while I agree with you that true gnosticism is not a Left-Hand Path because even through a gnostic belief one should change something about themselves once they have achieved enlightenment and have discovered the esoteric knowledge within, I still have to disagree, that Jesus was a gnostic. The Gospel of Thomas, which is from the Nag Hammadi library, is of course a gnostic text. Of course the difference is if one is to follow Jesus whether they will follow the one who is proclaimed as the Savior for all of mankind whose knowledge is there available for all in the commonly accepted text or the one in the Gospel of Thomas who had secret sayings which is esoteric knowledge only for a few. There is no shortage of those who believe in the Gospel of Thomas or those who believe that we can become the ruler or master of our own lives instead of submitting to the master or ruler known as God.

Well, the so-called Gnostic Gospels also aren't one coherent teaching. There's a whole mish-mash of stuff in there and there were likely, I guess, many differents groups calling themselves Christians with all sorts of different beliefs and practices. I don't really buy personally that Christianity was created to control the masses though I know this is a popular notion among some new-agers. I haven't seen evidence for it. There are some good books now on the early Christians by Elaine Pagels, Bart Ehrman and guys like this.

Nick

Elaine Pagels well written book "The Origin of Satan" explains clearly how the Romans took advantage of the Christian religion to rule Rome.

I haven't read that one. I know that her views have changed a little over the years, possibly in the face of accusations from other scholars of painting the orthodox as darker than evidence suggested.

What I know is that there's now one man often charged with being the chief architect of Orthodoxy, Irenaeus of Lyon, around 150-200 CE. I guess he was pretty patriarchal and no doubt controlling. Also he narrowly escaped purging himself and seems to have sought to standardise Christianity as a means to preserve it. I've seen no direct evidence that Christianity was created with the purpose of social control. I mean, the belief in "original sin" and the need to seek salvation outside of the self are hardly things that engender to a psychologically healthy society, but when has creating such a thing ever been the agenda of government anyway? Constantine didn't come onto the scene until at least a century after most of the New Testament canon was pretty much set in stone, from what I've read. So I think it's not so easy to blame the Romans for orthodox Christianity in its conception.

Nick

No no, I didn't mean / say that Christianity was created with the purpose of social control. Just that it was 'used' as a vehicle for Roman Empirical control.

Fair enough.

Nick

I think this is a VERY wise and astute statement. This can be said of a lot of things in history. It's something we can't forget happens. It gives us a better sense of historical context.