Is it possible to trace Gnostic Christianity to France?

There are still people out there operating under some misconceptions; Hopefully I can help clear them up.

The term "gnosticism" is actually a seventeenth century construct--- "gnostic" was a term used only by Sethians as a self descriptive term in ancient Christianity. The confusion arises out of the seventeenth-nineteenth century Theosophy movement--- Having bought into the "Churches" version of history, when some strange scriptures were discovered, the only resolution that did not contradict church history was a seperate religion of "Gnostics" that "competed" against "Christianity"

In the last few decades, we more scholastically inclined now know that this is nonsense. However, there are some "Gnostic" institutions that have their identities tied up in the pseudo history and misconceptions that came out of the previous era.

"Gnostic" in broad historical terms, are all of the sectarian versions of Christianity that preceded the school of thought called "catholicism" that originated in the second century and culminated with this school of thought becoming the Imperial religion in the fourth century.

However, just like it is going to take time for the pseudo histories to die out(if they ever will), "catholicism" was not an instant success, and had to be enforced by law. The Marcionites didn't close up shop until the sixth century for instance, and bits and drabs of varying sectarian traditions held on even into today.

It is scholastically impossible to point to any church from either today or any point in history and say that it was a direct decendent of any the historically recognized pre-catholic sects; Rome had done it's job far too well--- but modern churches still do, in what we politely refer to as their "confessional histories". i.e. the Baptist church claims to have it's roots in Montanism as part of it's identity---- However, the Montanists eschewed any usage of writin scripture, which is conveniently glossed over in the confessional history of the Baptist church.

Mani undoubtedly left his mark--- Islam was a reactionary religion both to Mani and catholicism. The "prophet" Mani claimed to be the "Paraclete" due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit---- the "prophed" Mohammed just skipped that part and went for the "angel" Gabrielle ordaining him as the "Paraclete".

So in conclusion, were the Cathars "Gnostic decendents"? No. However, they probably had some sectarian traditions that they had held on to for generations. Their love for the "Gospel of John" indicates that they may have come from the Cerenthian tradition, via Roman Catholicism, to form a new religion incorporating parts of both. Rome is the biggest influence on ALL Meditarainian and European religions after the fourth century.

Yeah, it's nonsense. This type of stuff sells, mainly to people that have been exposed to negative forms of Christianity, or, just to people who want to rationalize their own drug usage. The eleventh century church was pretty much in rags and scandal, and experimentation with psychodelics or "witchcraft" was going through the countryside. A few generations later comes the great plague, the centers of learning are decimated, and Christianity is again in turmoil. Religious history is like a tangled ball of fishing line--- if anybody tells you they know the answer, they are either running a scam or just haven't been paying attention

No really serious inroads into reviving pre-catholic Christianity was possible until the unearthing of the Nag Hammadi, and only fairly recently have we been able to approach it theologically. Not to say that there hasn't ALWAYS been a thread of Gnosis here and there letting people know "something is wrong with the world"; but I have been fortunate enough to find myself at the forefront of this approach to understanding at least the generalities....but first I and others who were trying to do a working reconstruction had to wade through mile deep mule cake. You are NOT going to find any useful information on the internet, unless you read the archeologists blogs and keep up with the current arguments.

We at Alpha and Omega don't use any confessional history, because the scholarship in this field has been evolving so quickly. In a nutshell, what differentiates the sects known as "gnostic" at THIS POINT is a nod to a lesser creator, and a "True God" that was unknown until revealed by Jesus Christ. This true God never engaged in warlike or violent activities, nor condoned any of his followers participating in anything that brings harm to others. This would not have gone over big in a Roman military empire, middle ages europe, and probably would be a very hard sell anywhere in the world today.

Someone on another forum is telling me that part of the issue is that certain people are pushing a kind of "new age" agenda to lump all religions into a more generic "spiritualism." I have no idea if that is true or not, but I think you could make a case for that sort of thing. I know Sylvia Browne and Deepak Chopra have championed Gnosticism in their own way; Chopra wrote a book about how supposedly the Gnostic teachings of Christ are the true teachings and the canonical texts are the wrong ones, which of course is pretty ridiculous.

I can see how new agers might want to make Gnosticism the Christianity they want vs. the orthodoxy they don't. But I don't know how strong of a movement "New Age" is to warrant that sort of suspicion.

If I've read that one it's been a long time, but that is a good point. Even the word "demi-urge" was co-opted from Plantonism.