>For more than thirty years, those zealous for a certain orthodoxy in Catholicism have denounced Jean Borella as a supporter of that most pernicious of Christian heresies: “gnosis.” Here he responds to his detractors — not to refute their baseless accusations, but to set before the eyes of readers the intricacies of a very complex topic. To this end, he retrieves and contextualizes findings from the history of religious ideas that attest to the scriptural foundation and rigorous orthodoxy of what St. Paul himself calls 'gnosis' — a gnosis, however, freed from the Gnosticism that usurped its name. He also distinguishes this truly Pauline gnosis from its various modern expressions, which latter are subjected to attentive critical examination.>There are many brilliant and penetrating passages of this book that can help Christians to see 'gnosis' in a new light, more akin to the way St Paul and Clement of Alexandria saw it. Here are two such examples from Borella that I find particularly convicting and inspiring:>We would be wise to remember Clement's comment in his Stromateis, Book V: "For gnosis of the divine substance is the eating and drinking of the divine Logos">Hegelian philosophy essentially transforms itself into a "speculative recording chamber;" "it confines itself to noting what becomes, in order to save it conceptually; it represents one of the greatest degradations of thought that one can imagine; it makes the philosopher the servant and even the slave of the 'spirit of the times.'Has anyone read this book?
>>25123915I’m no longer a serious gnostic, but this still interests me.
>>25124065There's no such thing as a "serious gnostic". Serious analysis of the concept cures you of the delusion.
>>25123915>not on Anna’s Damn
>>25124066Serious analysis of Christianity sends one shopping for the truth.Centuries of them have been splintering away from the Roman approved slop. It will continue till the last Pope.
>>25124079>Centuries of them have been splintering away from the Roman approved slop. It will continue till the last Pope.they've splintered over multiple issues and not just from Rome, your reductionism of church history is what's actually slop
>>25124642>He needed a couple of chapters autistically spewed up hereI'm not autistic though.
>>25123915It's a good book, he also deals with Guénon (who was the first accused of gnosticism by trads) and how he does indeed have a tendency towards a gnostic form of knowledge, that is knowledge for the sake of knowledge alone, while he contrasts that with Clement of Alexandria's view of knowledge/gnosis, which is one through faith.
