One of my favorite comments by Irenaeus is his remark on vegetarians. He said that vegetarians oppose divinity because they do not eat the divine gift of animal flesh. With that kind of reasoning, one who does not imbibe in the divine gift of cannabis also opposes the divine.

In my studies of Church history, the Gospels, and Gnostic literature, I could not help but observe that there’s a direct connection between Christ and the Gnostics. It’s even more profound than the connection between Peter and Roman pontificate.

You’ve made here the very common mistake of equating Gnosticism with Manichaeanism. While there are some strains of Gnostic thought in Manichaeanism, they are not synonymous: None of the dualism to which you refer here is found in Gnostic scripture. The Valentinian writings are very earthy and pro-Creation.

“The Mandaean communities currently living in modern day Iraq and Iran are the only remnant of Gnosticism in today’s world. Even this sect, however, did not come into existence until at least the second century ad and thus had no influence on the world of Christ or the writing of the New Testament.”

St. Paul encountered the Mandaeans in Ephesus; the Sabaeans who were baptised Christians by John the Baptist but who had never head of Jesus. Solidly first-century.

Also the Gospel of John contains many Gnostic elements, particularly in its Platonist pre-amble. Christ as “Logos” is an explicitly Gnostic concept.

Christian mysticism (St. John of the Cross, Francis of Assisi, Hildegard von Bingen, St. Theresa of Avila, etc) is nothing short of a Gnostic revival of the middle ages.

Iranaeus’ take on Gnosticism cannot be taken seriously; he broadly condemns any kind of heresy under the “Gnostic” label, and includes among them groups such as the Borborites and Cainites who likely did not exist and were simply fictions created by Iranaeus.

Great blog! I’ll be back.