Hello Paul

On 31-Oct-03, you wrote:

> Dear Mike,
>
> Thanks for the info.  Is your organization related to the works of
> Samael Aun Weor?

No.  I might add few people on this list are.

Regards
--
Mike Leavitt  ac998@...

Ok, Pneumen, now we are getting to some more difficult problems....

>>Firstly, in the limited amount of scholarship I've read on early
Christianity, I see little evidence of the falsification of Jesus's
words or that the words attributed to him were not his own.<<

Well, evidence simply does not generally prove negatives. However,
most historians do agree that at least some rewriting went on.

>>In fact, Gnostic and Orthodox sources, while critical of each
other, never misrepresent the other.<<

This statement, Pneumen, is absolutely false. In fact, it is known
quite well that Orthodox sources not only misrepresent Gnostics, but
in some cases make up Gnostic sects that most likely did not even
exist.

>>Given that this is he case, why in the world would they invent
things that come out Jesus's mouth?<<

Political power.

>>Secondly, I think that the word "Father" is so powerfully
archetypical, that it must have anthropomorphical cannotations. To
deny that would be to deny ones own humanity.<<

Funny you should put it like that... since to EVENTUALLY remove
one's self from humanity is exactly the goal of Gnosis.

>>I never said that I believe all references to the Father are to the
Bythos. In some cases they are clearly referring to the demiurge.<<

AND, some are to the Second Father... also called Barbelo. To be
accurate, we should probably not even be using the term "Bythos",
since it is one given to us by the Orthodox sources... it may not be
accurate. In the Gospel of Truth, the "Oblivion" could just as
easily be what the heresiologists were reading about, and thy just
misrepresented it in the same way they did for Abraxas and the
Basilidians. So, perhaps "First Father" is a better term?


>>Christian Gnostics certainly would. One could say that the
Christian message has so permeated Western Society that
Valentinianism is pobably the most influential and relevant in any
discussion of Gnosticism. It also has the most surviving texts.<<

Not exactly, Pneuman. Even the Valintinians would not have seen
Jesus as the savior in the same way that modern Catholics do. Jesus'
words would be important to a point, at which time Gnosis would take
presidence.

And as to the amount of existing texts. IF we consider Manichaeans
to be Gnostic (I don't, but others do) then we have WAY more
surviving Manichaean texts than Valentinian. Part of the problem
with the texts that fit the "Sethian" category is that we can't pin
them to a specific sect... but we still get the common outline.
Still, there are more non-Valentinian sources in the Nag Hammadi
Library than Valentinian.... including the fact that some of
the "Valentinian" sources may have been from ex-Valentinians (or
divergent sects)

>>Not neccessarily. I would say that Gnosticism provides one way of
grasping the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was likely more than a Gnostic
since he also inspired a certain amount of un-Gnostic Faith in his
followers, which he certainlys suppoted as a way to Salvation.<<

This is a whole new topic that we can go into if you wish. It is too
much to deal with in this post. There is serious question as to just
what Jeses taught and inspired, and who Jesus was. For instance,
some scholors, like Dr Pearson, suggest Jesus may have been Sethian
Gnostic. Others, like Dr Smith, suggest Jesus may have been
something like a Carpocratian. Very few historians believe that the
Biblical account is fully accurate. Some Gnostic sources don't even
show Jesus as a physically existing person, and the question could
be drawn (has been drawn) that perhaps this was meant to demonstrate
the recognition amongst Gnostics that Jesus was being used as a
literary device.... a myth. In any event, Gnostic sources do not
agree with each other on the question of Jesus.

It has become clear that you have some Orthodox faith in Jesus. That
is fine, and I would not attack that. May I suggest, though, that it
seems possible you have committed some level of eisegesis concerning
Gnosticism that has prevented you from gaining an historically
accurate outline of thier beliefs? Can I make a suggestion? Step
back for a moment and assume you are reading these texts with no
preconcieved ideas of what a "Christian" must look like... or what
relation Gnosticism may have had to what later became Christianity.
I think you will have a completely different view of Gnostics after
that.

PMCV

MM PMCV

Tis fine to temper them with the Gnostic texts, but know also that each will
temper them with their own cultural, language,  and personal interpretations
as well.

Not to mention the varying traditions in the NHL that interpreted
differently as well.

And also that the Jewish God is but a conglomeration of two earlier Sumerian
Gods, Enki and Enlil.

Some of the texts have the demiurge as the one who created man in the NHL.
Others have him as merely blind to the fact that he did no creating at all.
Obviosly those who favour the creation by the demiurge favour the
Valentinian exposition over the other docs or the interpretaion is used to
colour the way they see the others.

Now I'll ask you, who sent the flood, the plagues, etc. Was it Enki or
Enlil?


Tis the same God of the Pistis Sophia, i.e. the mirror image that we see,
i.e.

  "The Lord of the Universe is not called 'Father', but 'Forefather', the
beginning of those that will appear, but he (the Lord) is the beginningless
Forefather. Seeing himself within himself in a mirror, he appeared
resembling himself, but his likeness appeared as Divine Self-Father, and
<as> Confronter over the Confronted ones, First Existent Unbegotten Father.
He is indeed of equal age <with> the Light that is before him, but he is not
equal to him in power...... "

This image here is the demiurge and is but the image of the forefather.

MP
Penn

--
Every being has the Buddha Nature.  This is the self.

Buddhism. Mahaparinirvana Sutra 214



> To put this into Gnostic context... which "God" was that who
> breathed... and for what reason? Are we talking about the "soul" or
> the "spirit"? Was that breath coaxed as a trick, or a gift intended
> by that God?
>
> Personal opinions in answer to this line of questions are welcome,
> but I ask that in answering they are tempered in contrast to the
> Gnostic texts on the subject (Quote a Gnostic source and tell us if
> you agree or disagree).
>
> PMCV
>
> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Ginosko" <Ginosko@H...> wrote:
> > MM Wayne
> >
> > Precisely. Twas the Ruach which is the Pneuma of the NT. Both of
> these carry
> > with them the meaning of the "Rational Soul", i.e. the ability to
> look back
> > to the cause or rationalise. Or intellect as many don't like these
> days.
> > This was what was brerathed into man to make him a "living soul",
> i.e. able
> > to grow beyond his current state of understanding.
> >
> > MP
> > Penn
> >
> > --
> > The day of my spiritual awakening was the day I saw and knew I saw
> all
> > things in God and God in all things
> >
> > Mechtild of Magdeburg
> >
> >
> >
> > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "elyon1234" <elyon1234@y...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Penn,
> > > >
> > > > The reason that I list the John 1:1 as relating to pneumatic
> (air)
> > > > initiation is that we come to recognize the vibratory aspect
> of the
> > > > Logos within the body-mind through attention to the breath and
> its
> > > > source.  We come to recognize the radiant aspect of the Logos
> in
> > > the
> > > > Spirit Baptism (fire) initiation and as Living Waters in the
> Nectar
> > > > (water) initiation and finally as the Rock in the earth
> initiation.
> > > >
> > > > The elemental initiations may have been reserved for the
> transition
> > > > from psychic to pneumatic standing. The initiations could also
> be
> > > > given in stages depending on the attainments of the initiates.
> > > >
> > > > The initiations gave the aspirant the practices necessary to
> > > > completely transcend the rational mind and receive direct
> > > > non-conceptual recognition of their true nature (Supreme
> Gnosis).
> > > >
> > > > ely
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > When God Breathed into Man's nostrils what was breathed into mans
> > > nostrils?
> > >
> > > The Breath, pneuma, the Logos, the Word that is God, the Law, the
> > > Single True Nature of the Universe, The Spirit, the Nature of God
> > > was made manifest, a Living Soul.
> > >
> > > The Non-material, not of the dust of the Earth, of the air,
> pneuma,
> > > the Law, logos, The Spiritual Reality of First Cause alive in the
> > > Flesh, Free Will, Willfulness, the Freedom to act without cause,
> > > Infinite, Absolute, Boundlessness, Freedom of Mind, Free Will,
> the
> > > Freedom to do as you Will.
> > >
> > > Freedom from the Chaos of the Material World of Reality, the law
> of
> > > the Jungle, Evolutionary Determinism the Survival of the
> Fittest, ,
> > > to kill or be killed, Might is Right, Fatalism.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

To anyone who can help --

I'm working on outlining the trajectories of gnostic thought as
demonstrated in the NHL, and now that I have read many of those
works, I need to construct a bibliography of secondary materials
concerning gnosticism as it developed in the ancient near east.
Other than the list of works at the Gnostic Society Library website,
can anyone help me with a place to go for such texts and/or a
listing of them?

kp

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Ok, Pneumen, now we are getting to some more difficult problems....
>
> >>Firstly, in the limited amount of scholarship I've read on early
> Christianity, I see little evidence of the falsification of Jesus's
> words or that the words attributed to him were not his own.<<
>
> Well, evidence simply does not generally prove negatives. However,
> most historians do agree that at least some rewriting went on.
>

I simply find it hard to believe that a Christian, even a power-hungry
one, who sincerely believed in Jesus would knowingly falsify his
words. It seems that there are enough subsersive ideas in the
canonical gospels that would have been taken out if someone was
seriously interested in using Jesus as a means of defending
established social orders.

Real evidence could negate anything written in canonical scriptures,
and prove that certain claims have been falsified. None has ever been
found. There is only skeptical speculation, which is in fine in
scholarly debate if it is accepted as such.

> >>In fact, Gnostic and Orthodox sources, while critical of each
> other, never misrepresent the other.<<
>
> This statement, Pneumen, is absolutely false. In fact, it is known
> quite well that Orthodox sources not only misrepresent Gnostics, but
> in some cases make up Gnostic sects that most likely did not even
> exist.
>

Well, lets be careful here. You ask me for evidence when I make
claims, so it would only be fair to provide an example here.

The sources I've read (Elaine Pagels and www.gnosis.org) tend to quote
the parts of Iraneus et al that they find useful and accurate, so I
may be getting an impression  that the Orthodox of the second century,
while hostile to gnosticism, were not liars. The impression I get is
that these heresologists were cantankerous old farts and were very
"Roman" in that they were not particularly nuanced in their view of
the world. But that doesn't mean they were not sincere.

> >>Given that this is he case, why in the world would they invent
> things that come out Jesus's mouth?<<
>
> Political power.
>

As I said, there are plenty of things in the canonical gospels that
would have been deleted if political power were all that was
important. Was the Christian Church really a political force in the
2cnd century? It seems that the Orthodox were more obsessed with
martyrdom in those days than political power. I would tend to see the
debates between the various factions as more sincere than that.

Of course, this would not be the case in the fourth century, when the
Gospels were either cannonized or suppressed. But I think at this
time, it would have been difficult to actually alter any of the texts,
as they seem to have been well established by this time.


> >>Secondly, I think that the word "Father" is so powerfully
> archetypical, that it must have anthropomorphical cannotations. To
> deny that would be to deny ones own humanity.<<
>
> Funny you should put it like that... since to EVENTUALLY remove
> one's self from humanity is exactly the goal of Gnosis.
>

I don't know about that. I would say that the goal is to remove
yourself from worldly entanglements, and affirm ones true humanity. I
would not phrase this as removing oneself from humanity, but rather,
taking your proper place within it.

>
> >>Christian Gnostics certainly would. One could say that the
> Christian message has so permeated Western Society that
> Valentinianism is pobably the most influential and relevant in any
> discussion of Gnosticism. It also has the most surviving texts.<<
>
> Not exactly, Pneuman. Even the Valintinians would not have seen
> Jesus as the savior in the same way that modern Catholics do. Jesus'
> words would be important to a point, at which time Gnosis would take
> presidence.
>

That would depend on the modern Catholic. I suspect that there are
likely monastic orders and individual mystics that come close. If one
takes a Jungian view of ritual, one could say that Gnosticism is built
right into the Mass and Communion, and that this is closer to the core
of Gnosticism than any surviving theological or speculative text. As a
matter of fact, it would be directly responsible for the power that
the Catholic Church has exercised over the western mind.


>
> It has become clear that you have some Orthodox faith in Jesus. That
> is fine, and I would not attack that.

Quite the contrary. Every inch of my background  has made me
suspicious of Orthodoxy and externalities, especially secular ones,
which makes Faith quite impossible for me. That's why Gnosticism, for
me, is something that I'm forced into for Salvation. Being able to
have Faith is a gift for those who can do it.

I'm more interested in what is at the core of the Christian message.
The way to tell if a religious message is valid is to examine the
external "fruit" that these extrernal traditions bring: How do
"believers" or "knowers" behave? Are the societies built on these
religious traditions brutal or compassionate? Indeed, early Christian
society was appealing because Christians were essentially nice people
who were nice to each other. What is the spirit that such a community
is built on?

If you look at how the Christian commandment to love one another
(which can be taken both literally and allegorically) has transformed
a brutal Roman civilization into liberal Western Society (through
various Christian inspired ideologies such as the Enlightenment), I'd
say one has to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath
water when examining orthodox Christianity.

This was precisely what the Valentinians were doing. Their aim was to
reconcile the Gnostic and Orthodox viewpoints. I think this attempt
was noble. I believe that someone with  the proper Gnosis would
recognize Gnostic and Orthodox Christianity as two sides of the same
coin.

> May I suggest, though, that it
> seems possible you have committed some level of eisegesis concerning
> Gnosticism that has prevented you from gaining an historically
> accurate outline of thier beliefs? Can I make a suggestion? Step
> back for a moment and assume you are reading these texts with no
> preconcieved ideas of what a "Christian" must look like... or what
> relation Gnosticism may have had to what later became Christianity.

That is precisely what I do. I tend to take both the Canonical and
Gnostic Gospels at par.  I view the 2cnd century debates within the
Christian community as a sincere attempt of a community to grasp the
Christian message. For that matter, I take any religous texts as
valid, and tend to view them as an outward expression of universal
truths that can only be grasped through inner transformation.
Religious traditions embroider that message with culture.

And as long as we're getting into condescending psychoanalysis, I
think there is a tendency among many "neo-Gnostics" to view Orthodox
Christianity with more hostility than it deserves. This is
understandable when one lives in a Bible Belt, where fundamentalists
and the politicization of religion are very easily to project it on
the Orthodox of yore.

However, if one views early Christian debates as a Valentinian
exercise in the reconciliation of opposites, one can overcome these
predispositions.

Hi all. I'm new here and excited about being a new member of this
group. My main interests lie in the Gnostic Gospels, many seem to
dismiss them at apparent fact (mainly Catholics, i.e., the Vatican).
I'm Catholic myself actually, and find them (the gospels) very
enlightening and educational. I currently have the Gosepl of Thomas
and looking to get the Gospel of Mary Magdalene this week, along
with the Da Vinci Code. My question is, what are everyone's thoughts
on the tv special that was on last night, entitled "Jesus, Mary, &
Da Vinci"? It was on Primetime, the ABC channel at 8pm. I didn't
know very much about the Da Vinci Code, but I knew it was a book and
recently published. I enjoyed watching the program, practically made
my night. To anyone who watched it, do you know if or where I can
get a copy of that special, whether it be on VHS at the ABC website
or somewhere else? I look forward to talking with you all over time.

Well written and thank you
           Belteshazzarus
--- pneumen_borealis <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > Ok, Pneumen, now we are getting to some more
> difficult problems....
> >
> > >>Firstly, in the limited amount of scholarship
> I've read on early
> > Christianity, I see little evidence of the
> falsification of Jesus's
> > words or that the words attributed to him were not
> his own.<<
> >
> > Well, evidence simply does not generally prove
> negatives. However,
> > most historians do agree that at least some
> rewriting went on.
> >
>
> I simply find it hard to believe that a Christian,
> even a power-hungry
> one, who sincerely believed in Jesus would knowingly
> falsify his
> words. It seems that there are enough subsersive
> ideas in the
> canonical gospels that would have been taken out if
> someone was
> seriously interested in using Jesus as a means of
> defending
> established social orders.
>
> Real evidence could negate anything written in
> canonical scriptures,
> and prove that certain claims have been falsified.
> None has ever been
> found. There is only skeptical speculation, which is
> in fine in
> scholarly debate if it is accepted as such.
>
> > >>In fact, Gnostic and Orthodox sources, while
> critical of each
> > other, never misrepresent the other.<<
> >
> > This statement, Pneumen, is absolutely false. In
> fact, it is known
> > quite well that Orthodox sources not only
> misrepresent Gnostics, but
> > in some cases make up Gnostic sects that most
> likely did not even
> > exist.
> >
>
> Well, lets be careful here. You ask me for evidence
> when I make
> claims, so it would only be fair to provide an
> example here.
>
> The sources I've read (Elaine Pagels and
> www.gnosis.org) tend to quote
> the parts of Iraneus et al that they find useful and
> accurate, so I
> may be getting an impression  that the Orthodox of
> the second century,
> while hostile to gnosticism, were not liars. The
> impression I get is
> that these heresologists were cantankerous old farts
> and were very
> "Roman" in that they were not particularly nuanced
> in their view of
> the world. But that doesn't mean they were not
> sincere.
>
> > >>Given that this is he case, why in the world
> would they invent
> > things that come out Jesus's mouth?<<
> >
> > Political power.
> >
>
> As I said, there are plenty of things in the
> canonical gospels that
> would have been deleted if political power were all
> that was
> important. Was the Christian Church really a
> political force in the
> 2cnd century? It seems that the Orthodox were more
> obsessed with
> martyrdom in those days than political power. I
> would tend to see the
> debates between the various factions as more sincere
> than that.
>
> Of course, this would not be the case in the fourth
> century, when the
> Gospels were either cannonized or suppressed. But I
> think at this
> time, it would have been difficult to actually alter
> any of the texts,
> as they seem to have been well established by this
> time.
>
>
> > >>Secondly, I think that the word "Father" is so
> powerfully
> > archetypical, that it must have anthropomorphical
> cannotations. To
> > deny that would be to deny ones own humanity.<<
> >
> > Funny you should put it like that... since to
> EVENTUALLY remove
> > one's self from humanity is exactly the goal of
> Gnosis.
> >
>
> I don't know about that. I would say that the goal
> is to remove
> yourself from worldly entanglements, and affirm ones
> true humanity. I
> would not phrase this as removing oneself from
> humanity, but rather,
> taking your proper place within it.
>
> >
> > >>Christian Gnostics certainly would. One could
> say that the
> > Christian message has so permeated Western Society
> that
> > Valentinianism is pobably the most influential and
> relevant in any
> > discussion of Gnosticism. It also has the most
> surviving texts.<<
> >
> > Not exactly, Pneuman. Even the Valintinians would
> not have seen
> > Jesus as the savior in the same way that modern
> Catholics do. Jesus'
> > words would be important to a point, at which time
> Gnosis would take
> > presidence.
> >
>
> That would depend on the modern Catholic. I suspect
> that there are
> likely monastic orders and individual mystics that
> come close. If one
> takes a Jungian view of ritual, one could say that
> Gnosticism is built
> right into the Mass and Communion, and that this is
> closer to the core
> of Gnosticism than any surviving theological or
> speculative text. As a
> matter of fact, it would be directly responsible for
> the power that
> the Catholic Church has exercised over the western
> mind.
>
>
> >
> > It has become clear that you have some Orthodox
> faith in Jesus. That
> > is fine, and I would not attack that.
>
> Quite the contrary. Every inch of my background  has
> made me
> suspicious of Orthodoxy and externalities,
> especially secular ones,
> which makes Faith quite impossible for me. That's
> why Gnosticism, for
> me, is something that I'm forced into for Salvation.
> Being able to
> have Faith is a gift for those who can do it.
>
> I'm more interested in what is at the core of the
> Christian message.
> The way to tell if a religious message is valid is
> to examine the
> external "fruit" that these extrernal traditions
> bring: How do
> "believers" or "knowers" behave? Are the societies
> built on these
> religious traditions brutal or compassionate?
> Indeed, early Christian
> society was appealing because Christians were
> essentially nice people
> who were nice to each other. What is the spirit that
> such a community
> is built on?
>
> If you look at how the Christian commandment to love
> one another
> (which can be taken both literally and
> allegorically) has transformed
> a brutal Roman civilization into liberal Western
> Society (through
> various Christian inspired ideologies such as the
> Enlightenment), I'd
> say one has to be careful not to throw the baby out
> with the bath
> water when examining orthodox Christianity.
>
> This was precisely what the Valentinians were doing.
> Their aim was to
>
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

Understand, Pneumen, that it was not my intent to be condecending
with my suggestion to step back for a moment... I simply meant to
point out that some of your assurtions are... well, not always
SEEMING to be consistant with observable critical destinctions. I
mearly meant that perhaps it would be a good idea to leave Dr Pagels
(who is not always such a critical source) behind and take a look at
something a bit better corroborated and less popular in it's purpose
(some have even said "sensatinalist").

>I simply find it hard to believe that a Christian, even a power-
hungry one, who sincerely believed in Jesus would knowingly falsify
his words. It seems that there are enough subsersive ideas in the
canonical gospels that would have been taken out if someone was
seriously interested in using Jesus as a means of defending
established social orders.<

And yet, it is generally accepted amongst academecians that the
Gospel of Mark has been heavily edited, both adding and removing
sections. The "Biblical" version of Jesus' saying concerning seeking
and finding leaves out some pretty key elements when compared to
Thomas, and Dr Pagels (whom I only point out because you seem to
trust her), in her latest book, dedicates a great deal of attention
to how diametrically opposed John and Thomas' understanding of Jesus
is. The seeming subtle difference in his sayings have such profound
implications that she considers John to have been written for the
purpose of gaining political (Church politics.. not secular
government) ground over Thomas.

>Real evidence could negate anything written in canonical scriptures,
and prove that certain claims have been falsified. None has ever been
found. There is only skeptical speculation, which is in fine in
scholarly debate if it is accepted as such.<

How about the fact that the Geneologies in Matthew and Luke are not
in accord? Appologists come up with a number of excuses, but the
more cricital answer is that the purpose was political. Besides...
the burden of proof lies on the claimants. Since Matthew is so
obviously a rewriting of Exodus, there is good reason to demand
proof of any literal validity. Otherwise there is simply better
evidence behind the observation that we are seeing a mythological
process... making the notion of "falsification" only relevent when
the story line is intropolated with seeming historical claims (such
as supposed geneologies, or attacks on Mary, or Thomas, Peter, etc.).

>Well, lets be careful here. You ask me for evidence when I make
claims, so it would only be fair to provide an example here
(concerning my statement that Orthodox xources misrepresent
Gnostics).<

Ok, how about this for evidence? Take a look at Clement's treatement
of Carpocrates, and that of Irenaeus. They both agree that
Carpocrates was a libertine (though Irenaeus admits that he is
unsure if that is really true) but the simalarities end there. In
fact, both sources cannot be true since the belief system they
describe are at odds. This problem is pretty common knowledge.
Unless you can reconcile these accounts... it is fair to say that
the heresiologies can't always be trusted.

Let's add to this the fact that the so called "Cainites" dealt with
by a few heresiologists probably never existed. If they did, the
charges against them were so contrived (and cliche' urban legend of
the time) as to be very unlikely. In fact, Dr William questions if
any of the charges of libertine behavior in the Gnostic sects in
general are worth anything, and most scholors today agree that at
least many of them are not. The orthodox heresiologists describe
Abraxas as something completely different from what our surviving
Gnostic sources do, and the list goes on.

>As I said, there are plenty of things in the canonical gospels that
would have been deleted if political power were all that was
important.<

And as I said, there is evidince that some things were in fact
deleted. Even if you do not believe in Mortin Smith's descovery of
purged sections of Mark (though most do), the odd editing of the
sections that would be filled are well known. And the theory of the
addition of the last section is nearly universally accepted as fact.
Your own home Bible is even likely to point it out.

Early Christians seem to have had no qualms about creative
redaction, just as the redacter of the J, E, P, D, segments of the
Torah had none.

>If one takes a Jungian view of ritual, one could say that
Gnosticism is built right into the Mass and Communion, and that this
is closer to the core of Gnosticism than any surviving theological
or speculative text. As a matter of fact, it would be directly
responsible for the power that the Catholic Church has exercised
over the western mind.<

Sure... IF one takes that eisegetic and anti-historical method of
interpretation.

>I'm more interested in what is at the core of the Christian message.
The way to tell if a religious message is valid is to examine the
external "fruit" that these extrernal traditions bring: How do
"believers" or "knowers" behave? Are the societies built on these
religious traditions brutal or compassionate? Indeed, early Christian
society was appealing because Christians were essentially nice people
who were nice to each other. What is the spirit that such a community
is built on?<

There is one problem... if you believe that Orthodox sources about
Gnosticism are accurate, as you have said you do, then some Gnostics
believed they must commit every sin to gain salvation... murder,
rape, child molestation... is that about love?

>This was precisely what the Valentinians were doing. Their aim was
to reconcile the Gnostic and Orthodox viewpoints. I think this
attempt was noble. I believe that someone with the proper Gnosis
would recognize Gnostic and Orthodox Christianity as two sides of
the same coin.<

Where ever you got the idea that Valintinians were trying to
reconcile Orthodox and Gnostic beliefs.... throw that book away (or
at least toss the bathwater portion). Valintinians did not view
themselves as a different movement, there was no such thing as
the "orthodox church" for them to try to reconcile with "Gnosticism"
(a term that they probably never used either). Valintinians simply
considered themselves good Christians who were participating in
something a bit deeper than the as yet uninitiated other Christians.
They thought of themselves as the true followers of Paul's secret
teachings. Two rungs on a ladder would be a better description that
two sides of the coin, and attempted reconciliation of two movements
is something you will need to demonstrate (to put it as kindly as I
can).

>However, if one views early Christian debates as a Valentinian
exercise in the reconciliation of opposites, one can overcome these
predispositions.<

Assuming one has understood the Valentinian belief system as well as
they think they have. Does Dr Pagels or Jung? Well, I would
certainly question using these sources without adding something more
critical (not to say they have no value).

And... I am STILL seeing a fatal flaw in the seeming need to stick
to Valentinian thought, since it is not representative of GNosticism
as a whole.

PMCV

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> [...]
> How about the fact that the Geneologies in Matthew and Luke are not
> in accord? Appologists come up with a number of excuses, but the
> more cricital answer is that the purpose was political. Besides...
> the burden of proof lies on the claimants. Since Matthew is so
> obviously a rewriting of Exodus, there is good reason to demand
> proof of any literal validity. Otherwise there is simply better
> evidence behind the observation that we are seeing a mythological
> process... making the notion of "falsification" only relevent when
> the story line is intropolated with seeming historical claims (such
> as supposed geneologies, or attacks on Mary, or Thomas, Peter,
> etc.).


Also from _Beyond Belief_, I thorougly enjoyed where Pagels pointed
out how Matthew has Jesus entering Jerusalem on the backs of both a
donkey AND a colt.  It almost conjures up images of a circus
performer astride two Lippizan stallions--quite a feat indeed.  ;-)

Gerry

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "David" <christianofzion@y...>
wrote:
> Hi all. I'm new here and excited about being a new member of this
> group. My main interests lie in the Gnostic Gospels, many seem to
> dismiss them at apparent fact (mainly Catholics, i.e., the
Vatican).
> I'm Catholic myself actually, and find them (the gospels) very
> enlightening and educational. I currently have the Gosepl of Thomas
> and looking to get the Gospel of Mary Magdalene this week, along
> with the Da Vinci Code. My question is, what are everyone's
thoughts
> on the tv special that was on last night, entitled "Jesus, Mary, &
> Da Vinci"? It was on Primetime, the ABC channel at 8pm. I didn't
> know very much about the Da Vinci Code, but I knew it was a book
and
> recently published. I enjoyed watching the program, practically
made
> my night. To anyone who watched it, do you know if or where I can
> get a copy of that special, whether it be on VHS at the ABC website
> or somewhere else? I look forward to talking with you all over time.



Welcome, David.  I didn't have an opportunity to view the special,
but I did read an interesting article in The New York Times about the
show:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/03/arts/television/03HEFF.html?
ex=1068920697&ei=1&en=aeafdb3bdeb0ec0c


Although many neo-Gnostics might not place great emphasis on the
historicity of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, there is undoubtedly still
interest in the Mary Magdalene figure as seen in Gnostic scripture.
Her role of disciple does vary from most traditional treatments.  You
might want to add _The Gospel of Philip_ to the readings you list
since there is brief mention of Mary Magdalene.

Perhaps others here who viewed the program can give you their
reactions.


Cari

Cari, yes, I do plan on getting the Gospel of Philip. Just the ones
I've seen at Barnes & Noble and the Gnosis.org Archive Bookstore seem
to be rather pricey, so I thought I'd get the Gospel of Mary
Magdalene for the moment and the other gospel in time (or soon).
Thank you for the link to suggested. I look forward to reading the
article.

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "David" <christianofzion@y...>
wrote:
> Cari, yes, I do plan on getting the Gospel of Philip. Just the ones
> I've seen at Barnes & Noble and the Gnosis.org Archive Bookstore
seem
> to be rather pricey, so I thought I'd get the Gospel of Mary
> Magdalene for the moment and the other gospel in time (or soon).
> Thank you for the link to suggested. I look forward to reading the
> article.


You're welcome,David.

gnosis.org offers an online library, too:

http://gnosis.org/library.html

Gospel of Philip:

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gop.html



Cari

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Understand, Pneumen, that it was not my intent to be condecending
> with my suggestion to step back for a moment... I simply meant to
> point out that some of your assurtions are... well, not always
> SEEMING to be consistant with observable critical destinctions. I
> mearly meant that perhaps it would be a good idea to leave Dr
Pagels
> (who is not always such a critical source) behind and take a look
at
> something a bit better corroborated and less popular in it's
purpose
> (some have even said "sensatinalist").


In reference to your Post #8566, I'd agree that one might not want to
rely solely on one author as authoritative, but I don't see a need to
leave Dr. Pagels behind, PMCV.  :-)  To her credit I found her books
about Valentinian exegesis of Paul and John to be geared to an
informed audience and quite scholarly.

Pagels offers a look at early Christianity with information and a
perspective that are new to many people in her general audience, and
I believe that lots of people can relate to her personal
experiences.  In _Beyond Belief_ she includes many pages of notes
mentioning source materials that those inclined can pursue.  On page
29, Pagels self-effacingly admits that she has grown in her
understanding of the Nag Hammadi discovered writings: "As we shall
see in the following chapters, we are now beginning to understand
these `gospels' much better than we did when I first wrote about them
twenty years ago."

Actually _Beyond Belief_ offers much to corroborate some of your
excellent points, PMCV.  You already do mention her relating the
differences between John and Thomas and how "she considers John to
have been written for the purpose of gaining political (Church
politics.. not secular government) ground over Thomas."  I'll give a
few more examples below.

First, _Beyond Belief_ is not a book about Gnosticism; it's a book
about early Christianity.  In fact I appreciate that she chooses to
refrain from using the generic term, "Gnostic," very often and
instead refers to various people's teachings, like Thomas, Marcus or
Valentinus.  The word "heretics" is more often seen as a name used by
Irenaueus when mentioning groups that differed from his vision of
correct scriptural interpretation.  So, as you note, "Valintinians
did not view themselves as a different movement, there was no such
thing as the `orthodox church' for them to try to reconcile
with `Gnosticism' (a term that they probably never used either).
Valintinians simply considered themselves good Christians who were
participating in something a bit deeper than the as yet uninitiated
other Christians."  Schism was perpetuated by church fathers such as
Irenaeus.

As you also point out, PMCV, "Two rungs on a ladder would be a better
description than two sides of the coin."  On page 163, Pagels
writes, "While Irenaeus sought to clarify basic convictions about God
and Jesus Christ in theological statements that would become the
framework of the fourth-century creeds, Valentinian Christians
accorded such theological propositions a much less important role.
Instead of regarding these as the essential and certain basis for
spiritual understanding -- and instead of rejecting them -- they
treated them as elementary teachings and emphasized instead what
Irenaeus mentions only in passing -- how far God surpasses human
comprehension."  (In my view, beliefs such as atonement theology and
full literal acceptance of Jesus, a man, as God incarnate don't speak
to this incomprehensible Unknown.)

As far as Jung goes, there is an interesting letter from Jungian
scholar Stephan A. Hoeller in the second issue of _Gnosis_ magazine
(Spring/Summer 1986), page 4.  Dr. Hoeller addresses a couple of
other letters in the "Forum" questioning the emphasis of Gnosticism
in the first issue.  He begins his response, "The mounting interest
in Gnosticism evinced by scholars and the public is due less to
romantic fascination with a philosophy of radical world-denying
dualism than it is to certain imbalances and repressions in
traditional Western spirituality, which shortcomings Gnosticism is
uniquely suited to rectify."

IOW, Hoeller doesn't see "Gnostic and Orthodox Christianity as two
sides of the same coin."  He talks about rectifying imbalances of
traditional Western spirituality, not "reconciling" beliefs.  In
fact, he uses an example of two sides of a coin; however, in this
case he is referring to his character being shaped *both* by his
study of Gnosticism and by his involvement in the work of C.G. Jung.
I know there are those (*ahem*) who, at this point, might be gritting
their teeth, ready to emit warnings about psychologizing
Gnosticism.   ;-)

But consider...

I personally don't believe Gnosticism should at all be relegated
solely as a branch of psychology.  However,  the ancient Gnostics
recognized that we *interpret* the unknowable through images.  And,
Hoeller comments on this, *not* saying that Gnosticism is psychology,
but rather that there is a psychological *orientation* ~  "It was
Jung's view, as it is of numerous experts on Gnosticism, such as H.
C. Puech, G. Quispel and others, that Gnosticism differs from almost
all other religions in that its orientation is psychological rather
than theological and metaphysical.  Its basis is personal spiritual
experience that -- unlike in most traditions -- is not turned into
belief and commandment but into myth.  This myth in turn becomes a
stimulus for similarly toned personal spiritual experience."  Hoeller
further states later in his letter, "Like their latter day exponent,
Jung, the Gnostics were practical and empirical technicians of the
spirit, and not quibblers over philosophic maxims and theological
dogma.  It also goes without saying that a Gnostic process of
personal alchemy has no need or use for a traditional `guru'-like
teacher, although it may utilize myth and ritual for its purposes."

Whether or not one agrees with *anything* Hoeller believes or Jung
states, I don't see Jung talking about a reconciliation of disparate
viewpoints so much as Gnosticism, in his words, providing "a bridge
to a more living appreciation of Christian tradition." (_Collected
Writings_, Vol. 11, par. 444).

This could also be a point of contention.  Any thoughts here?


Cari

Cari, thank you for those links, I'll definitely take a look at them.
Is there a Gnostic chatroom somewhere in yahoo or do some of the
members get together and chat sometime? I know there are Christian
rooms and then rooms yahoo members create. Was wondering if there is
a room where Gnostics can gather or whatever.

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "David" <christianofzion@y...>
wrote:
> Cari, thank you for those links, I'll definitely take a look at
them.
> Is there a Gnostic chatroom somewhere in yahoo or do some of the
> members get together and chat sometime? I know there are Christian
> rooms and then rooms yahoo members create. Was wondering if there
is
> a room where Gnostics can gather or whatever.



Well, there is a chat feature on our homepage, but I don't know if
anyone has used it.  :-)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/

Perhaps other members know of other chatrooms.


Cari

Oh yes, Lady Cari... agreed on all accounts. And I do say at the end
of my post that Jung and Pagels are still helpful, I don't advocate
tossing them (by "leave her behind" at the beginning of my post I
simply meant for the moment). I would take Dr Pagels over Jung when
it comes to our specific subject (and I have been known to quote
Jung in here also), but I cannot advocate exclusively gaining info
from her as a source (then again... I would not advocate gaining any
info so exclusively from anyone).

I do feel the need at times to offset the large number of people who
only read "The Gnostic Gospels", and seem unwilling to look at other
evidence. There are times when I think I will start to see bumper
stickers saying "Elain said it, I believe it, that settles it" *lol*
(not her fault, obviously). Seriously though... I would recomend
this newest book of hers. It is especially germain to the
conversation with Pneumen. It is obvious, as she and you both point
out, that her (and all academicians) understanding has grown over
time... unfortunately it is still "The Gnostic Gospels" that seems
to be the popular work on the subject. I will be happy if "Beyond
Belief" usurps that position, as well as that of the "Jesus
Mysteries", as the popular source-work.

PMCV

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...> >
In reference to your Post #8566, I'd agree that one might not want
to
> rely solely on one author as authoritative, but I don't see a need
to
> leave Dr. Pagels behind, PMCV.  :-)  To her credit I found her
books
> about Valentinian exegesis of Paul and John to be geared to an
> informed audience and quite scholarly.
>
> Pagels offers a look at early Christianity with information and a
> perspective that are new to many people in her general audience,
and
> I believe that lots of people can relate to her personal
> experiences.  In _Beyond Belief_ she includes many pages of notes
> mentioning source materials that those inclined can pursue.  On
page
> 29, Pagels self-effacingly admits that she has grown in her
> understanding of the Nag Hammadi discovered writings: "As we shall
> see in the following chapters, we are now beginning to understand
> these `gospels' much better than we did when I first wrote about
them
> twenty years ago."
>
> Actually _Beyond Belief_ offers much to corroborate some of your
> excellent points, PMCV.  You already do mention her relating the
> differences between John and Thomas and how "she considers John to
> have been written for the purpose of gaining political (Church
> politics.. not secular government) ground over Thomas."  I'll give
a
> few more examples below.
>
> First, _Beyond Belief_ is not a book about Gnosticism; it's a book
> about early Christianity.  In fact I appreciate that she chooses
to
> refrain from using the generic term, "Gnostic," very often and
> instead refers to various people's teachings, like Thomas, Marcus
or
> Valentinus.  The word "heretics" is more often seen as a name used
by
> Irenaueus when mentioning groups that differed from his vision of
> correct scriptural interpretation.  So, as you note, "Valintinians
> did not view themselves as a different movement, there was no such
> thing as the `orthodox church' for them to try to reconcile
> with `Gnosticism' (a term that they probably never used either).
> Valintinians simply considered themselves good Christians who were
> participating in something a bit deeper than the as yet
uninitiated
> other Christians."  Schism was perpetuated by church fathers such
as
> Irenaeus.
>
> As you also point out, PMCV, "Two rungs on a ladder would be a
better
> description than two sides of the coin."  On page 163, Pagels
> writes, "While Irenaeus sought to clarify basic convictions about
God
> and Jesus Christ in theological statements that would become the
> framework of the fourth-century creeds, Valentinian Christians
> accorded such theological propositions a much less important
role.
> Instead of regarding these as the essential and certain basis for
> spiritual understanding -- and instead of rejecting them -- they
> treated them as elementary teachings and emphasized instead what
> Irenaeus mentions only in passing -- how far God surpasses human
> comprehension."  (In my view, beliefs such as atonement theology
and
> full literal acceptance of Jesus, a man, as God incarnate don't
speak
> to this incomprehensible Unknown.)
>
> As far as Jung goes, there is an interesting letter from Jungian
> scholar Stephan A. Hoeller in the second issue of _Gnosis_
magazine
> (Spring/Summer 1986), page 4.  Dr. Hoeller addresses a couple of
> other letters in the "Forum" questioning the emphasis of
Gnosticism
> in the first issue.  He begins his response, "The mounting
interest
> in Gnosticism evinced by scholars and the public is due less to
> romantic fascination with a philosophy of radical world-denying
> dualism than it is to certain imbalances and repressions in
> traditional Western spirituality, which shortcomings Gnosticism is
> uniquely suited to rectify."
>
> IOW, Hoeller doesn't see "Gnostic and Orthodox Christianity as two
> sides of the same coin."  He talks about rectifying imbalances of
> traditional Western spirituality, not "reconciling" beliefs.  In
> fact, he uses an example of two sides of a coin; however, in this
> case he is referring to his character being shaped *both* by his
> study of Gnosticism and by his involvement in the work of C.G.
Jung.
> I know there are those (*ahem*) who, at this point, might be
gritting
> their teeth, ready to emit warnings about psychologizing
> Gnosticism.   ;-)
>
> But consider...
>
> I personally don't believe Gnosticism should at all be relegated
> solely as a branch of psychology.  However,  the ancient Gnostics
> recognized that we *interpret* the unknowable through images.
And,
> Hoeller comments on this, *not* saying that Gnosticism is
psychology,
> but rather that there is a psychological *orientation* ~  "It was
> Jung's view, as it is of numerous experts on Gnosticism, such as
H.
> C. Puech, G. Quispel and others, that Gnosticism differs from
almost
> all other religions in that its orientation is psychological
rather
> than theological and metaphysical.  Its basis is personal
spiritual
> experience that -- unlike in most traditions -- is not turned into
> belief and commandment but into myth.  This myth in turn becomes a
> stimulus for similarly toned personal spiritual experience."
Hoeller
> further states later in his letter, "Like their latter day
exponent,
> Jung, the Gnostics were practical and empirical technicians of the
> spirit, and not quibblers over philosophic maxims and theological
> dogma.  It also goes without saying that a Gnostic process of
> personal alchemy has no need or use for a traditional `guru'-like
> teacher, although it may utilize myth and ritual for its purposes."
>
> Whether or not one agrees with *anything* Hoeller believes or Jung
> states, I don't see Jung talking about a reconciliation of
disparate
> viewpoints so much as Gnosticism, in his words, providing "a
bridge
> to a more living appreciation of Christian tradition." (_Collected
> Writings_, Vol. 11, par. 444).
>
> This could also be a point of contention.  Any thoughts here?
>
>
> Cari

Hello lady_caritas

On 05-Nov-03, you wrote:

> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>> Understand, Pneumen, that it was not my intent to be condecending
>> with my suggestion to step back for a moment... I simply meant to
>> point out that some of your assurtions are... well, not always
>> SEEMING to be consistant with observable critical destinctions. I
>> mearly meant that perhaps it would be a good idea to leave Dr
> Pagels
>> (who is not always such a critical source) behind and take a look
> at
>> something a bit better corroborated and less popular in it's
> purpose
>> (some have even said "sensatinalist").
>
>
> In reference to your Post #8566, I'd agree that one might not want
> to rely solely on one author as authoritative, but I don't see a
> need to leave Dr. Pagels behind, PMCV. :-) To her credit I found her
> books about Valentinian exegesis of Paul and John to be geared to an
> informed audience and quite scholarly.
>
> Pagels offers a look at early Christianity with information and a
> perspective that are new to many people in her general audience, and
> I believe that lots of people can relate to her personal
> experiences. In _Beyond Belief_ she includes many pages of notes
> mentioning source materials that those inclined can pursue. On page
> 29, Pagels self-effacingly admits that she has grown in her
> understanding of the Nag Hammadi discovered writings: "As we shall
> see in the following chapters, we are now beginning to understand
> these `gospels' much better than we did when I first wrote about
> them twenty years ago."
>
> Actually _Beyond Belief_ offers much to corroborate some of your
> excellent points, PMCV. You already do mention her relating the
> differences between John and Thomas and how "she considers John to
> have been written for the purpose of gaining political (Church
> politics.. not secular government) ground over Thomas." I'll give a
> few more examples below.
>
> First, _Beyond Belief_ is not a book about Gnosticism; it's a book
> about early Christianity. In fact I appreciate that she chooses to
> refrain from using the generic term, "Gnostic," very often and
> instead refers to various people's teachings, like Thomas, Marcus or
> Valentinus. The word "heretics" is more often seen as a name used by
> Irenaueus when mentioning groups that differed from his vision of
> correct scriptural interpretation. So, as you note, "Valintinians
> did not view themselves as a different movement, there was no such
> thing as the `orthodox church' for them to try to reconcile with
> `Gnosticism' (a term that they probably never used either).
> Valintinians simply considered themselves good Christians who were
> participating in something a bit deeper than the as yet uninitiated
> other Christians." Schism was perpetuated by church fathers such as
> Irenaeus.
>
> As you also point out, PMCV, "Two rungs on a ladder would be a
> better description than two sides of the coin." On page 163, Pagels
> writes, "While Irenaeus sought to clarify basic convictions about
> God and Jesus Christ in theological statements that would become the
> framework of the fourth-century creeds, Valentinian Christians
> accorded such theological propositions a much less important role.
> Instead of regarding these as the essential and certain basis for
> spiritual understanding -- and instead of rejecting them -- they
> treated them as elementary teachings and emphasized instead what
> Irenaeus mentions only in passing -- how far God surpasses human
> comprehension." (In my view, beliefs such as atonement theology and
> full literal acceptance of Jesus, a man, as God incarnate don't
> speak to this incomprehensible Unknown.)
>
> As far as Jung goes, there is an interesting letter from Jungian
> scholar Stephan A. Hoeller in the second issue of _Gnosis_ magazine
> (Spring/Summer 1986), page 4.  Dr. Hoeller addresses a couple of
> other letters in the "Forum" questioning the emphasis of Gnosticism
> in the first issue.  He begins his response, "The mounting interest
> in Gnosticism evinced by scholars and the public is due less to
> romantic fascination with a philosophy of radical world-denying
> dualism than it is to certain imbalances and repressions in
> traditional Western spirituality, which shortcomings Gnosticism is
> uniquely suited to rectify."
>
> IOW, Hoeller doesn't see "Gnostic and Orthodox Christianity as two
> sides of the same coin." He talks about rectifying imbalances of
> traditional Western spirituality, not "reconciling" beliefs. In
> fact, he uses an example of two sides of a coin; however, in this
> case he is referring to his character being shaped *both* by his
> study of Gnosticism and by his involvement in the work of C.G. Jung.
> I know there are those (*ahem*) who, at this point, might be
> gritting their teeth, ready to emit warnings about psychologizing
> Gnosticism. ;-)
>
> But consider...
>
> I personally don't believe Gnosticism should at all be relegated
> solely as a branch of psychology. However, the ancient Gnostics
> recognized that we *interpret* the unknowable through images. And,
> Hoeller comments on this, *not* saying that Gnosticism is
> psychology, but rather that there is a psychological *orientation* ~
> "It was Jung's view, as it is of numerous experts on Gnosticism,
> such as H. C. Puech, G. Quispel and others, that Gnosticism differs
> from almost all other religions in that its orientation is
> psychological rather than theological and metaphysical. Its basis is
> personal spiritual experience that -- unlike in most traditions --
> is not turned into belief and commandment but into myth. This myth
> in turn becomes a stimulus for similarly toned personal spiritual
> experience." Hoeller further states later in his letter, "Like their
> latter day exponent, Jung, the Gnostics were practical and empirical
> technicians of the spirit, and not quibblers over philosophic maxims
> and theological dogma. It also goes without saying that a Gnostic
> process of personal alchemy has no need or use for a traditional
> `guru'-like teacher, although it may utilize myth and ritual for its
> purposes."
>
> Whether or not one agrees with *anything* Hoeller believes or Jung
> states, I don't see Jung talking about a reconciliation of disparate
> viewpoints so much as Gnosticism, in his words, providing "a bridge
> to a more living appreciation of Christian tradition." (_Collected
> Writings_, Vol. 11, par. 444).
>
> This could also be a point of contention.  Any thoughts here?
>
>
> Cari

None other than to say that you have summed up my good Bishop's
position on Jung and Gnosis better than I could have.

Regards
--
Mike Leavitt  ac998@...

> Understand, Pneumen, that it was not my intent to be condecending
> with my suggestion to step back for a moment... I simply meant to
> point out that some of your assurtions are... well, not always
> SEEMING to be consistant with observable critical destinctions.

I think you are reading a lot of things into what I was saying that
simply aren't there. There may be a need to elaborate on some of my
points, put I think the assumptions you are making about my
assumptions is somewhat condenscending.

I
> mearly meant that perhaps it would be a good idea to leave Dr Pagels
> (who is not always such a critical source) behind and take a look at
> something a bit better corroborated and less popular in it's purpose
> (some have even said "sensatinalist").
>

I'm not sure why you'd say she isn't critical. I actually find the
"Gnostic Gospels" quite critical (critical in the sense of applying a
methodical and scholarly approach to the subject). There is a good
thorough  review of the literature of the time in the first chapter,
and appropriate caveats and contextualization where necessary,
certainly more than in your last post..

Moreover, she writes well. The book is pretty much jargon free, which
is what makes it accessible. I was never forced to scramble a word
search to look up terms like 'eisegetic'.

(I actually did a google search on this word, and the only place you
can find it is in specialized scholarly debates about religion. The
most common links appear to be to this very forum).


> And yet, it is generally accepted amongst academecians that the
> Gospel of Mark has been heavily edited, both adding and removing
> sections. The "Biblical" version of Jesus' saying concerning seeking
> and finding leaves out some pretty key elements when compared to
> Thomas, and Dr Pagels (whom I only point out because you seem to
> trust her), in her latest book, dedicates a great deal of attention
> to how diametrically opposed John and Thomas' understanding of Jesus
> is. The seeming subtle difference in his sayings have such profound
> implications that she considers John to have been written for the
> purpose of gaining political (Church politics.. not secular
> government) ground over Thomas.
>

Well, I haven't gotten to this part yet, so it would be prudent for me
to wait until I got to it before commenting. But I'll dive in anyway.

I think I know the parts that you are refering to, though. I rememeber
one part from John that is very adamant about Jesus having been a real
person, something Thomas stressed less. It puzzled me when I first
read it, but given the context of a debate between Thomas followers
and John followers, it makes a lot of sense.

More to the point though, the fact that a particular Gospel was
heavily edited does not mean it was falsified. It might just as easily
mean that dubious elements were deleted.

I should also point out, that while there was considerable debate over
what Jesus meant by "finding and seeking", there is none about whether
he said it or that these words were important.

Lastly, I would not refer to these differences as "political". To me,
political would mean that positions are adopted for the sake of
winning power and influence. These differences appear to be
theological, which one would expect in a community as far-flung and
diverse as the early Christian one.

I find it an interesting idea, though, that the Gospels were in fact a
result of a theological dialogue between various schools of thought
within the Christian community, and that these schools appear to trace
their lineage to specific apostles. Studying the interactions between
these schools appears to be what Pagels is doing. It sems a very
constructive and reasonable way  of approaching the Gospels.

> >Real evidence could negate anything written in canonical
scriptures,
> and prove that certain claims have been falsified. None has ever
been
> found. There is only skeptical speculation, which is in fine in
> scholarly debate if it is accepted as such.<
>
> How about the fact that the Geneologies in Matthew and Luke are not
> in accord? Appologists come up with a number of excuses, but the
> more cricital answer is that the purpose was political. Besides...
> the burden of proof lies on the claimants. Since Matthew is so
> obviously a rewriting of Exodus, there is good reason to demand
> proof of any literal validity. Otherwise there is simply better
> evidence behind the observation that we are seeing a mythological
> process... making the notion of "falsification" only relevent when
> the story line is intropolated with seeming historical claims (such
> as supposed geneologies, or attacks on Mary, or Thomas, Peter,
etc.).

Where do they contradict each other?  I have to say, geneologies bore
me, so I don't read these parts with great attention.  But it seems to
me that so much is left out that there is plenty of room for these
Gospels to be complimentary as opposed to contradictory.

The Hebrews in that part of the world were somewhat obsessed with
bloodlines and the fulfillment of prophecy (some still are) and
Orthodox Churches seem to have clung to it to this day. I usually find
groups like this scary. Since Mathew and Luke preached primarily in
Israel, it doesn't seem unususual to me that they would be more
concerned about compiling a geneology,  combing through scripture
looking for evidence of how Jesus's life fulfills the words of ancient
prophets, or base the form of their documents on ancient Hebrew texts.
In fact, it appears to expalin a lot more than conspiracy theories
about malevolent forces deleting portions of the Bible.

>
> >Well, lets be careful here. You ask me for evidence when I make
> claims, so it would only be fair to provide an example here
> (concerning my statement that Orthodox xources misrepresent
> Gnostics).<
>
> Ok, how about this for evidence? Take a look at Clement's treatement
> of Carpocrates, and that of Irenaeus. They both agree that
> Carpocrates was a libertine (though Irenaeus admits that he is
> unsure if that is really true) but the simalarities end there. In
> fact, both sources cannot be true since the belief system they
> describe are at odds. This problem is pretty common knowledge.
> Unless you can reconcile these accounts... it is fair to say that
> the heresiologies can't always be trusted.

Well, I'm only familiar with Irenaeus, so maybe that explains my
impression. I find that his accounts of Gnosticism are very detailed,
and appear to be corroborated by most Gnostic texts. My real point is
that if you discard the hyperbole and hystrionics you find the
descriptive accounts that are pretty reliable.

> The orthodox heresiologists describe
> Abraxas as something completely different from what our surviving
> Gnostic sources do, and the list goes on.
>

You'll have to be more specific here. I'm not familiar with this
literature, and if I read this, I did not have the background to
assign any significance to it.

> >As I said, there are plenty of things in the canonical gospels that
> would have been deleted if political power were all that was
> important.<
>
> And as I said, there is evidince that some things were in fact
> deleted. Even if you do not believe in Mortin Smith's descovery of
> purged sections of Mark (though most do), the odd editing of the
> sections that would be filled are well known. And the theory of the
> addition of the last section is nearly universally accepted as fact.
> Your own home Bible is even likely to point it out.
>

Interesting point. When were they deleted and who did it? Maybe the
people who compiled the canonical gospels themselves only had access
to fragments of the text. Perhaps the canons were an attempt to
include only the sections that the community was absolutely sure
about, and they had good reasons to purge the fragments.

Given that it occured to no one in the 2cnd century to chronical the
life of Jesus for its own sake, it is not unreasonable to assume that
those who compiled the cannons were motivated by the same desire to
draw an accurate picture of his life and times in the same way we are,
and were hindered by the same fragmentary evidence and competing
ideological motivations. Seeing that I am reflexively wary of
conspiracy theories, I tend to favor such a view.


> >If one takes a Jungian view of ritual, one could say that
> Gnosticism is built right into the Mass and Communion, and that this
> is closer to the core of Gnosticism than any surviving theological
> or speculative text. As a matter of fact, it would be directly
> responsible for the power that the Catholic Church has exercised
> over the western mind.<
>
> Sure... IF one takes that eisegetic and anti-historical method of
> interpretation.
>

Jung's theories about archetypes are as scientifically valid as any in
psychology. They are based on years of clinical observation. It seems
entirely appropriate to apply them to the scholarly study of religious
phenomena, historical or otherwise. In the case of Gnosticism, it
would seem particularly relevant for obvious reasons, as they provide
a coherent and rigorous scientific theory that fills in the gaps in
the historical record, much the way that the empirically verified laws
of physics fill in the gaps in the record of astronomy, climate,
geology and biology.

What is historical method, anyways? Most historians are the most
politicized and self-serving ideologues in academia. They usually use
Marxist or Libertarian political theory to tie together their
fragmentary evidence as opposed to more valid theories based on real
empirical observations of real human beings. Is this the type of
"criticism" you advocate?

> >I'm more interested in what is at the core of the Christian
message.
> The way to tell if a religious message is valid is to examine the
> external "fruit" that these extrernal traditions bring: How do
> "believers" or "knowers" behave? Are the societies built on these
> religious traditions brutal or compassionate? Indeed, early
Christian
> society was appealing because Christians were essentially nice
people
> who were nice to each other. What is the spirit that such a
community
> is built on?<
>
> There is one problem... if you believe that Orthodox sources about
> Gnosticism are accurate, as you have said you do, then some Gnostics
> believed they must commit every sin to gain salvation... murder,
> rape, child molestation... is that about love?
>

  I acknowledged that Orthodox sources were hostile. These accusations
are hyperbole, and any intelligent reader could figure that out. There
is little doubt that the Orthodox were scandalized by what they saw
and made the predictable value judgements.  But they did have an anal
Roman penchant for  keeping accurate and descriptive records of their
observations, even of their enemies. They even prided themselves on
it. That is why  scholars find them so useful, and why I am skeptical
of claims that they deliberately falsified the words of Jesus. Indeed,
they would have an intrinsic motivation for preserving the literal
words since they valued them so highly.

Indeed, I would find Gnostic sources more suspect, since they say that
the allegorical truth is more important than the literal truth.
Indeed, it is they who would found myths about Jesus based on their
spiritual utility and persuasiveness. If the world is essentially
corrupt, why value worldly truth?  Historical methodology, in their
view, would be the vile domain of the Demiuge.

In otherwords, the Orthodox were historical in their methodologies,
while the Gnostics, if we assert that they were attempting to break
away from this world, were anti-historical.

>
> Valintinians did not view
> themselves as a different movement, there was no such thing as
> the "orthodox church" for them to try to reconcile with "Gnosticism"
> (a term that they probably never used either).
> Valintinians simply
> considered themselves good Christians who were participating in
> something a bit deeper than the as yet uninitiated other Christians.
> They thought of themselves as the true followers of Paul's secret
> teachings.

That is precisely my point. Valentinians saw no contradiction between
the Orthodox claims and those of the Gnostics. They took for granted
that good Christians would draw on both literal and allegorical Truth.

> Two rungs on a ladder would be a better description that
> two sides of the coin, and attempted reconciliation of two movements
> is something you will need to demonstrate (to put it as kindly as I
> can).

  I do not neccessarily think that all who called themselves Gnostic in
those days were any farther up the ladder than Orthodox Christians.
From what I read, Valintinian schools provided a highly individualized
path for each member. I do not think that they would dismiss the power
of Faith with the same derision as some other Gnostics if they came
across an individual who could benefit from it.

>
> Assuming one has understood the Valentinian belief system as well as
> they think they have. Does Dr Pagels or Jung? Well, I would
> certainly question using these sources without adding something more
> critical (not to say they have no value).
>

Well, I get most of my views on Valintinians from Hoeller. Indeed, his
descriptions point to that direction.

> And... I am STILL seeing a fatal flaw in the seeming need to stick
> to Valentinian thought, since it is not representative of GNosticism
> as a whole.

That is not a mystery. No group is. Gnosticism appears to relate to a
number of seperate movements influenced by Greek-inspired "mystery
schools" that floated around in the ancient world. Still, it seems
that all surviving Gnostic thought in the West seems to have been
heavily influenced by Valentinianism. Perhaps you can trace the
Masonic emphasis on social responisibility and mystical rite back to
them? Perhaps the Rosicrucian Enlightenment? The Cathar Perfecti?
You'd have to admit, the Valentinians were more "of this world" than
other Gnostics, as were those in those involved in these movements. It
may be difficult to establish a historical link, but an honest
evaluation of their actions shows some striking similarities that are
very interesting for those of us who put stock in our own intuitions
than in paper trails.

I have to say, I agree with most of your excellent post. However, I
tend to comment more on things that either need more elaboration or
that I just disagree a with. I apologize if I come off as
argumentative. I won't apologize for being provocative, though :-).

> The word "heretics" is more often seen as a name used by
> Irenaueus when mentioning groups that differed from his vision of
> correct scriptural interpretation.  So, as you note, "Valintinians
> did not view themselves as a different movement, there was no such
> thing as the `orthodox church' for them to try to reconcile
> with `Gnosticism' (a term that they probably never used either).
> Valintinians simply considered themselves good Christians who were
> participating in something a bit deeper than the as yet uninitiated
> other Christians."  Schism was perpetuated by church fathers such as
> Irenaeus.
>

I think I have to elaborate here.

The picture that Pagels paints of Irenaeus is more nuanced than that
of a man  obsessed solely with heresy. I beleive he was more concerned
with charity work, martyrdom, and keeping a community together and
used his Faith as a source of energy in his endeavors. I've found that
people like this often have little use for Gnostic-type speculation
and contemplation if it takes them away from their mission and
calling.

I keep on thinking of Mother Theresa. She was very, very Orthodox and
did more good in a day than most of us will muster the courage to do
in a lifetime.

I also personally know some "Orthodox" Christians that I can say the
same about.

>
> IOW, Hoeller doesn't see "Gnostic and Orthodox Christianity as two
> sides of the same coin."  He talks about rectifying imbalances of
> traditional Western spirituality, not "reconciling" beliefs.

Well, in my view, this is an admission that they are two sides of the
same coin. The need to balance Gnostic "introversion" with Orthodox
"extroversion" seems pretty obvious here. One is not complete without
the other.

That's why I believe that those of us who cannot (or will not) have
this Orthodox Faith must seek it. It is possible that the only way is
through Gnosis, and I think this simple naivite is part of the
Pleroma.

>
> I personally don't believe Gnosticism should at all be relegated
> solely as a branch of psychology.

I think there are many psychologists who would concur :-).


> Whether or not one agrees with *anything* Hoeller believes or Jung
> states, I don't see Jung talking about a reconciliation of disparate
> viewpoints so much as Gnosticism, in his words, providing "a bridge
> to a more living appreciation of Christian tradition." (_Collected
> Writings_, Vol. 11, par. 444).
>

Again, I see the bridge as precisely this reconciliation. While the
reconciliation of these viewpoints may not be the point, I think they
are a natural by-product of this bridge. Hollow institutional shells
are infused with a new life, and seekers find a form for their
underlying spiritual yearning.

The list at gnosis.org is excellent, but here's another I've used

http://www.hermeticfellowship.org/Bibliotheca/HFGnosticBiblio.html

The best way to compile a comprehensive bibliography is to search
yourself on new and used booksites and on internet search.

Some tips: many authors on any list have written more than one book
on the subject of gnosticism. So do a search by specific author to
see what else they've written.

Also, key words for searching by subject: gnosticism, gnostic,
gnosis, nag hammadi, hermeticism, hermetic, early christianity,
mandean, manichean, valentinian, sethian, and so on...

This will bring up lists of current and out of print books. Many
OOP's you can find on cheap on used book sites.

Also, try looking by publisher.  Leiden Brill is a reputable
publisher of religious scholarship. For example, their 'Nag Hammadi
Studies' series, but their books are a bit pricy. Many are out of
print. A good place to find difficult to obtain Leiden is Het Oosters
Antiquarium. Their email address is smitskamp@... , the
website is http://www.oriental.demon.nl/

Another thing to do is to take books you already have and look in the
bibliography at the back. Authors build on other authors work and
you'll find titles that are common source material for more than one
book.

New books:
www.amazon.com
www.amazon.co.uk
www.bn.com

Used/out of print:
www.alibris.com
www.addall.com
www.abebooks.com
www.dovebook.com
www.2ndhand.org.uk/cgi/books.cgi
www.esotericism.co.uk/

Hope this helps!

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "kpinitaly" <kpinitaly@y...>
wrote:
> To anyone who can help --
>
> I'm working on outlining the trajectories of gnostic thought as
> demonstrated in the NHL, and now that I have read many of those
> works, I need to construct a bibliography of secondary materials
> concerning gnosticism as it developed in the ancient near east.
> Other than the list of works at the Gnostic Society Library
website,
> can anyone help me with a place to go for such texts and/or a
> listing of them?
>
> kp

David, get a copy of The Nag Hammadi Library edited by James Robinson
and The Gnostic Scripture by Bentley Layton. Both are in paperback
and normally found in most bookstores. The NH Library was mentioned
in both Brown's book and in the ABC special.
http://www.gnosis.org had not only a good booklist but also has an
online library that contains the entire Nag Hammadi Library and many
other texts.

Now, as to Brown's book itself. I reviewed this on this board back in
July and I HATED it. It's fiction and largely based on Holy Blood
Holy Grail which itself is crackpot. This is not a good place to
start if you wish to learn about gnosticism and Mary Magdelene. If
you want to read it for entertainment, that's fine. Just be aware
that it's sensationalism with little to back it up. The Davinci Code
to religious scholarship is what tabloids are to journalism. You
know, those things they sell at the supermarket checkout that have
titles like "my mother married an alien".

The ABC special attempted to be objective. It still wasn't entirely
satisfactory. Here's an example. A lot of discussion went into
whether Mary Magdelene was a prostitute or not. It was interesting as
a historical analysis but no one seemed to get the point that her
portrayal in gnosticism and early Christianity as a "whore" was
metaphorical. Examples: Thunder Perfect Mind "I am the honored one
and the scorned one. I am the whore and the holy one." or Gospel of
Thomas "Jesus said, "Whoever knows the father and the mother will be
called the child of a whore"" or The Second Treatise of the Great
Seth "For those who were in the world had been prepared by the will
of our sister Sophia - she who is a whore - because of the innocence
which has not been uttered." In some cases the feminine and the whore
is also a metaphor for the soul: The Exegesis on the Soul "As long as
she was alone with the father, she was virgin and in form
androgynous. But when she fell down into a body and came to this
life, then she fell into the hands of many robbers. And the wanton
creatures passed her from one to another and [...defiled] her.Some
made use of her by force, while others did so by seducing her with a
gift. In short, they defiled her, and she [...lost] her virginity.
And in her body she prostituted herself and gave herself to one and
all, considering each one she was about to embrace to be her husband"

Mary Magdelene is a symbol for the fallen Sophia. She's the one the
descending Christ comes to save.
Instead, it was assumed the motivation was to belittle her because of
the misogyny of a patriarchal system. Which I'm not saying wasn't a
motivation, but there's another side to this. The ABC special
interviewed several religious experts including Pagels and no one
brought up the alternative explanation.




--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "David" <christianofzion@y...>
wrote:
> Hi all. I'm new here and excited about being a new member of this
> group. My main interests lie in the Gnostic Gospels, many seem to
> dismiss them at apparent fact (mainly Catholics, i.e., the
Vatican).
> I'm Catholic myself actually, and find them (the gospels) very
> enlightening and educational. I currently have the Gosepl of Thomas
> and looking to get the Gospel of Mary Magdalene this week, along
> with the Da Vinci Code. My question is, what are everyone's
thoughts
> on the tv special that was on last night, entitled "Jesus, Mary, &
> Da Vinci"? It was on Primetime, the ABC channel at 8pm. I didn't
> know very much about the Da Vinci Code, but I knew it was a book
and
> recently published. I enjoyed watching the program, practically
made
> my night. To anyone who watched it, do you know if or where I can
> get a copy of that special, whether it be on VHS at the ABC website
> or somewhere else? I look forward to talking with you all over time.

<Plotinus' description of the One comes to mind here. If it is the
One, it cannot exist, because then it would partake of Oneness and
Existence (Platonic Categories). In this sense no human qualities
can be ascribed to it, you are absolutely correct.I guess the
question comes down to -- are we talking about the Unknown (Father)
or about a projected image of it. Can we even talk about the
Unknown? >>

First off, Why is the premise that oneness and existence mutually
exclusive assumed to be true? Someone needs to explain this to me.

And second, what are "human" qualities anyway? I thought the human
being was a composite. Body, soul, spirit. An element from the upper
Godhead and others from the demiurge and matter. The dilemma is what
exactly are "you"?

It may be true that we can't "know" the Father, knowledge itself
being derivative of a lower existence. That doesn't mean we can't
experience or unite with him (and gnostic texts back this up).
Neither does this doesn't logically imply that the Father can't know
us. The descriptions indicate that each emanation is of lesser power
than the one above. I've always liked to use the book Flatland as an
analogy. A two dimensional creature can't conceive of a three
dimensional existence, but a three dimensional creature can
understand the lower two dimensional field.
The very texts that state the Father can't be described, because
description is limiting, go on to do just that, and describe him in
absolute, albeit apophatic, terms.

Let's look at Apocryphon of John, which can't be dismissed as merely
Valentinian compromise.
(http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Valentinian_Writings.htm)
AoJ may be using "Father" and "Man" as descriptive tools, but yet
it's a text that simultaneously indicates an awareness of the
transcendent indescribable God, indicating the author is cognizant
the use of these words are symbols are meant to facilitate a higher
awareness. So you have to ask yourself what's going in with the use
of "Man" for the upper Godhead.  Why use "Man" and "son of Man" when
you've already used "God"? Couldn't it have used another term to
indicate something unknown, alien to us? Yet it doesn't. It uses a
uniquely human term. Clearly this is to indicate some sort of
connection to us. The use of words such as "Bythos" or "Prime Source"
does not convey the same nuance. Those words do sound clearly alien.

What is meant by "only the Son can know the Father" and "we too can
become sons and inherit that of the Father"(paraphrasing)? This is
stated and has major implication IMO. What has fallen and is in "us"
is the stuff of that unity. What is "Man" really then? Is it
consciousness? Consciousness as not the same thing as cognitive mind
nor ego nor knowledge, but perhaps awareness or spirit?




--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
> Hello lady_caritas
>
> On 30-Oct-03, you wrote:
>
> > Mike, I do agree that gnosis involves "not just an image we attain
> > to," even though as humans we relate to and express in images. My
> > question may not have been clear. I was specifically referring to
> > Gerry's example in relation to current discussion. In the example,
> > even though mention is made of an ineffable God, we still see what
> > Gerry describes as "projection of human limitations onto a
> > supposedly ineffable, intangible Divinity."
> >
> > IOW, as relates to this discussion, Unknown is just that,...
> > unknown, so whether or not a reason or purpose is involved is,
well,
> > unknown. And we need to make the distinction as to whether we are
> > referring to the Unknown or rather an image thereof. If we assign
> > human motivation, such as reason or purpose to a god, then my
> > opinion is that we are not necessarily speaking of the ultimate
> > ineffable, infinite unknown.
> >
> > On a practical note, realization of an Unknown that is also
> > recognized as the spiritual spark within steers responsibility
right
> > back to ourselves and not onto a projected image, which is at best
> > still limited, even if meaningful to us.
>
> Plotinus' description of the One comes to mind here.  If it is the
> One, it cannot exist, because then it would partake of Oneness and
> Existence (Platonic Categories).  In this sense no human qualities
> can be ascribed to it, you are absolutely correct.I guess the
> question comes down to -- are we talking about the Unknown (Father)
> or about a projected image of it.  Can we even talk about the
> Unknown?  That seems impossible on its face.  Maybe we can say with
> Plotinus that God is One, but does not therefore exist.  :-)  It
> seems the nature of spiritual truth always ends up in Paradox.  This
> strongly suggests that intellect cannot comprehend it.  Meditating
on
> Paradox shuts down the mind, and Zen uses the Koan as a tool for
> enlightenment, but it is everywhere on "the Way."  Reading Jacob
> Boehme years and years ago I began meditating on how God exists but
> does not exist, and went into a Mystical Experience of Union with,
> dare I say it, God.  I still like him.
>
> Regards
> --
> Mike Leavitt  ac998@l...

<<Even the Valintinians would not have seen
Jesus as the savior in the same way that modern Catholics do. Jesus'
words would be important to a point, at which time Gnosis would take
presidence.>>

Wrong.
The Valentinians did not think Jesus was merely a mouthpiece. There's
a metaphysical need for him without which gnosis cannot occur.

Look at Ptolemy's myth and forget Jesus for the moment.
Ireneus 1.2.5-1.2.6
Christ and Holy Spirit are emanated by the only-Begotten(Monogenes)
son. This emanation saves the entirety of the Pleroma from falling as
Sophia did by making all the elements of the Pleroma equal to each
other (thus all become Christ, all become Holy Spirit, all become
human beings, all become Word, etc..)
The only-Begotten is stated the only thing that can comprehend the
prime parent pair, which is invisible and incomprehensible to the
Pleroma.

http://www.gnosis.org/library/advh1.htm (Layton's translation on pg
285 of the Gnostic Scriptures is much easier to read but I'm too lazy
to type it out)

<<5. After this substance had been placed outside of the Pleroma of
the AEons, and its mother restored to her proper conjunction, they
tell us that Monogenes, acting in accordance with the prudent
forethought of the Father, gave origin to another conjugal pair,
namely Christ and the Holy Spirit (lest any of the AEons should fall
into a calamity similar to that of Sophia), for the purpose of
fortifying and strengthening the Pleroma, and who at the same time
completed the number of the AEons. Christ then instructed them as to
the nature of their conjunction, and taught them that those who
possessed a comprehension of the Unbegotten were sufficient for
themselves.(7) He also announced among them what related to the
knowledge of the Father,--namely, that he cannot be understood or
comprehended, nor so much as seen or heard, except in so far as he is
known by Monogenes only. And the reason why the rest of the AEons
possess perpetual existence is found in that part of the Father's
nature which is incomprehensible; but the reason of their origin and
formation was situated in that which may be comprehended regarding
him, that is, in the Son.(8) Christ, then, who had just been
produced, effected these things among them. >>

<<4. They moreover affirm that the Saviour(15) is shown to be derived
from all the AEons, and to be in Himself everything by the following
passage: "Every male that openeth the womb."(16) For He, being
everything, opened the womb(17) of the enthymesis of the suffering
AEon, when it had been expelled from the Pleroma. This they also
style the second Ogdoad, of which we shall speak presently. And they
state that it was clearly on this account that Paul said, "And He
Himself is all things;"(1) and again, "All things are to Him, and of
Him are all things;"(2) and further, "In Him dwelleth all the fulness
of the Godhead;"(3) and yet again, "All things are gathered together
by God in Christ."(4) Thus do they interpret these and any like
passages to be found in Scripture. >>


There's a reason why it's called "Jesus Christ". Jesus himself is a
composite from various sources, including the material, the psychic,
the spiritual. And the way I read this is that the patterns that
occur in the Pleroma are mirrored here in the material as well. The
crucifixion of Jesus is symbolic of the descent of the Christ.

1.71-1.72
<<1. When all the seed shall have come to perfection, they state that
then their mother Achamoth shall pass from the intermediate place,
and enter in within the Pleroma, and shall receive as her spouse the
Saviour, who sprang from all the AEons, that thus a conjunction may
be formed between the Saviour and Sophia, that is, Achamoth. These,
then, are the bridegroom and bride, while the nuptial chamber is the
full extent of the Pleroma. The spiritual seed, again, being divested
of their animal souls,(2) and becoming intelligent spirits, shall in
an irresistible and invisible manner enter in within the Pleroma, and
be bestowed as brides on those angels who wait upon the Saviour. The
Demiurge himself will pass into the place of his mother Sophia;(3)
that is, the intermediate habitation. In this intermediate place,
also, shall the souls of the righteous repose; but nothing of an
animal nature shall find admittance to the Pleroma. When these things
have taken place as described, then shall that fire which lies hidden
in the world blaze forth and bum; and while destroying all matter,
shall also be extinguished along with it, and have no further
existence. They affirm that the Demiurge was acquainted with none of
these things before the advent of the Saviour.

2. There are also some who maintain that he also produced Christ as
his own proper son, but of an animal nature, and that mention was(4)
made of him by the prophets. This Christ passed through Mary(5) just
as water flows through a tube; and there descended upon him in the
form of a dove it the time of his baptism, that Saviour who belonged
to the Pleroma, and was formed by the combined efforts of all its
inhabitants. In him there existed also that spiritual seed which
proceeded from Achamoth. They hold, accordingly, that our Lord, while
preserving the type of the first-begotten and primary tetrad, was
compounded of these four substances,--of that which is spiritual, in
so far as He was from Achamoth; of that which is animal, as being
from the Demiurge by a special dispensation, inasmuch as He was
formed [corporeally] with unspeakable skill [fate or providence]; and
of the Saviour, as respects that dove which descended upon Him. He
also continued free from all suffering, since indeed it was not
possible that He should suffer who was at once incomprehensible and
invisible. And for this reason the Spirit of Christ, who had been
placed within Him, was taken away when He was brought before Pilate.
They maintain, further, that not even the seed which He had received
from the mother [Achamoth] was subject to suffering; for it, too, was
impassible, as being spiritual, and invisible even to the Demiurge
himself. It follows, then, according to them, that the animal Christ,
and that which had been formed mysteriously by a special
dispensation, underwent suffering, that the mother might exhibit
through him a type of the Christ above, namely, of him who extended
himself through Stauros,(6) and imparted to Achamoth shape, so far as
substance was concerned. For they declare that all these transactions
were counterparts of what took place above. >>

There's more in Valentinian myth, such as theories of how the power
of the archons was diminished and such. But this isn't just a
messenger boy.

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Ok, Pneumen, now we are getting to some more difficult problems....
>
> >>Firstly, in the limited amount of scholarship I've read on early
> Christianity, I see little evidence of the falsification of Jesus's
> words or that the words attributed to him were not his own.<<
>
> Well, evidence simply does not generally prove negatives. However,
> most historians do agree that at least some rewriting went on.
>
> >>In fact, Gnostic and Orthodox sources, while critical of each
> other, never misrepresent the other.<<
>
> This statement, Pneumen, is absolutely false. In fact, it is known
> quite well that Orthodox sources not only misrepresent Gnostics,
but
> in some cases make up Gnostic sects that most likely did not even
> exist.
>
> >>Given that this is he case, why in the world would they invent
> things that come out Jesus's mouth?<<
>
> Political power.
>
> >>Secondly, I think that the word "Father" is so powerfully
> archetypical, that it must have anthropomorphical cannotations. To
> deny that would be to deny ones own humanity.<<
>
> Funny you should put it like that... since to EVENTUALLY remove
> one's self from humanity is exactly the goal of Gnosis.
>
> >>I never said that I believe all references to the Father are to
the
> Bythos. In some cases they are clearly referring to the demiurge.<<
>
> AND, some are to the Second Father... also called Barbelo. To be
> accurate, we should probably not even be using the term "Bythos",
> since it is one given to us by the Orthodox sources... it may not
be
> accurate. In the Gospel of Truth, the "Oblivion" could just as
> easily be what the heresiologists were reading about, and thy just
> misrepresented it in the same way they did for Abraxas and the
> Basilidians. So, perhaps "First Father" is a better term?
>
>
> >>Christian Gnostics certainly would. One could say that the
> Christian message has so permeated Western Society that
> Valentinianism is pobably the most influential and relevant in any
> discussion of Gnosticism. It also has the most surviving texts.<<
>
> Not exactly, Pneuman. Even the Valintinians would not have seen
> Jesus as the savior in the same way that modern Catholics do.
Jesus'
> words would be important to a point, at which time Gnosis would
take
> presidence.
>
> And as to the amount of existing texts. IF we consider Manichaeans
> to be Gnostic (I don't, but others do) then we have WAY more
> surviving Manichaean texts than Valentinian. Part of the problem
> with the texts that fit the "Sethian" category is that we can't pin
> them to a specific sect... but we still get the common outline.
> Still, there are more non-Valentinian sources in the Nag Hammadi
> Library than Valentinian.... including the fact that some of
> the "Valentinian" sources may have been from ex-Valentinians (or
> divergent sects)
>
> >>Not neccessarily. I would say that Gnosticism provides one way of
> grasping the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was likely more than a
Gnostic
> since he also inspired a certain amount of un-Gnostic Faith in his
> followers, which he certainlys suppoted as a way to Salvation.<<
>
> This is a whole new topic that we can go into if you wish. It is
too
> much to deal with in this post. There is serious question as to
just
> what Jeses taught and inspired, and who Jesus was. For instance,
> some scholors, like Dr Pearson, suggest Jesus may have been Sethian
> Gnostic. Others, like Dr Smith, suggest Jesus may have been
> something like a Carpocratian. Very few historians believe that the
> Biblical account is fully accurate. Some Gnostic sources don't even
> show Jesus as a physically existing person, and the question could
> be drawn (has been drawn) that perhaps this was meant to
demonstrate
> the recognition amongst Gnostics that Jesus was being used as a
> literary device.... a myth. In any event, Gnostic sources do not
> agree with each other on the question of Jesus.
>
> It has become clear that you have some Orthodox faith in Jesus.
That
> is fine, and I would not attack that. May I suggest, though, that
it
> seems possible you have committed some level of eisegesis
concerning
> Gnosticism that has prevented you from gaining an historically
> accurate outline of thier beliefs? Can I make a suggestion? Step
> back for a moment and assume you are reading these texts with no
> preconcieved ideas of what a "Christian" must look like... or what
> relation Gnosticism may have had to what later became Christianity.
> I think you will have a completely different view of Gnostics after
> that.
>
> PMCV

MM David

Something else about Da'vincii you might find interesting is that there arer
those who now claim him to be the creator of the Turin shroud thru use of
his own "camera obscura". They have replicated the process sucessfully to my
understanding. The very chemicals required were known to Arabic scientists
going back to the 10th cent (silver nitrate being the chief one) to which he
himself had access to their docs.

MP
Penn

--
"Toleration isn't much. But it is the first step towards curiosity,
interest, study, understanding, appreciating and finally valuing diversity.
If we can get everyone on the first step of tolerance, at least we won't be
killing each other."

Anon


> Hi all. I'm new here and excited about being a new member of this
> group. My main interests lie in the Gnostic Gospels, many seem to
> dismiss them at apparent fact (mainly Catholics, i.e., the Vatican).
> I'm Catholic myself actually, and find them (the gospels) very
> enlightening and educational. I currently have the Gosepl of Thomas
> and looking to get the Gospel of Mary Magdalene this week, along
> with the Da Vinci Code. My question is, what are everyone's thoughts
> on the tv special that was on last night, entitled "Jesus, Mary, &
> Da Vinci"? It was on Primetime, the ABC channel at 8pm. I didn't
> know very much about the Da Vinci Code, but I knew it was a book and
> recently published. I enjoyed watching the program, practically made
> my night. To anyone who watched it, do you know if or where I can
> get a copy of that special, whether it be on VHS at the ABC website
> or somewhere else? I look forward to talking with you all over time.
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Incog, as much as I enjoyed the ABC special, it did seem to only
cover the subject of Mary's being or not being a prostitute, so
you're indeed right. That one issue out-weighed the others of her
possibly being the one to the right of Christ in "The Last Supper";
being married to Christ, or not; as well as the Prieure de Sion and
the possible descendents of Christ and Mary Magdalene. I found it to
be very informing despite it only covering one particular issue.
After having thought about everything that was covered and reading a
few things on the Da Vinci Code and some of the historical subjects
included with the Da Vinci Code at ABC.com, I'd have to say that the
issue of Christ and Mary Magdalene is quite probable. I mean, none of
us were there in his time
and there are a few errors in the bible as it stands, i.e., the
conflicting genealogies of Christ in the NT and things coulda been
kept out of the Gospels, like Christ's personal life, because all we
read about is his ministry and having twelve disciple, I'd figure at
least one of them would know his personal life. Anyway, all I'm sayin
is that the fact he was or wasn't married coulda been included, so
we'd know more about him, but that kind of thing wasn't written. And
the person who is supposed to be John in "The Last Supper" does look
mighty feminine, and Jesus and Mary were rather close, as is
believed, so it coulda been her. I also have to say that the painting
is just a painting, not a snap-shot, the figures were painted in a
way that showed Da Vinci's skill in painting people. People talk like
it was a picture taken at the time of the Last Supper, like that's
what they looked like and basing opinions about who is who and
possibly why everyone close to Jesus wasn't there with him at the
Last Supper and included in the story of the Last Supper in the NT.
Not to discredit Da Vinci with his painting, just giving people
something to think about regarding the painting. Think that's all I
have to say at the moment. :-)

David

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Oh yes, Lady Cari... agreed on all accounts. And I do say at the
end
> of my post that Jung and Pagels are still helpful, I don't advocate
> tossing them (by "leave her behind" at the beginning of my post I
> simply meant for the moment). I would take Dr Pagels over Jung when
> it comes to our specific subject (and I have been known to quote
> Jung in here also), but I cannot advocate exclusively gaining info
> from her as a source (then again... I would not advocate gaining
any
> info so exclusively from anyone).
>
> I do feel the need at times to offset the large number of people
who
> only read "The Gnostic Gospels", and seem unwilling to look at
other
> evidence. There are times when I think I will start to see bumper
> stickers saying "Elain said it, I believe it, that settles it"
*lol*
> (not her fault, obviously). Seriously though... I would recomend
> this newest book of hers. It is especially germain to the
> conversation with Pneumen. It is obvious, as she and you both point
> out, that her (and all academicians) understanding has grown over
> time... unfortunately it is still "The Gnostic Gospels" that seems
> to be the popular work on the subject. I will be happy if "Beyond
> Belief" usurps that position, as well as that of the "Jesus
> Mysteries", as the popular source-work.
>
> PMCV


Well yes, agreed, PMCV.  In fact in my response to Pneumen later,
I'll continue to include her newer book in my references, since he
likes Dr. Pagels style and vocabulary.

Oh, and for future reference to members, in case the word should crop
up again, "eisegesis" can be found in the dictionary and means the
interpretation of a text by reading into it one's own ideas.  Compare
this to "exegesis" which would be a critical interpretation of a
text.


Cari

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
> Hello lady_caritas
>
> On 05-Nov-03, you wrote:
> > This could also be a point of contention.  Any thoughts here?
> >
> >
> > Cari
>
> None other than to say that you have summed up my good Bishop's
> position on Jung and Gnosis better than I could have.
>
> Regards
> --
> Mike Leavitt  ac998@l...


Ah, you are very kind, Mike, but you give me too much credit.  Dr.
Hoeller eloquently speaks for himself.  I merely slapped together a
few of his quotes.  ;-)


Cari

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, incognito_lightbringer
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
  a historical analysis but no one seemed to get the point that her
> portrayal in gnosticism and early Christianity as a "whore" was
> metaphorical. Examples: Thunder Perfect Mind "I am the honored one
> and the scorned one. I am the whore and the holy one." or Gospel of
> Thomas "Jesus said, "Whoever knows the father and the mother will
be
> called the child of a whore"" or The Second Treatise of the Great
> Seth "For those who were in the world had been prepared by the will
> of our sister Sophia - she who is a whore - because of the
innocence
> which has not been uttered." In some cases the feminine and the
whore
> is also a metaphor for the soul: The Exegesis on the Soul "As long
as
> she was alone with the father, she was virgin and in form
> androgynous. But when she fell down into a body and came to this
> life, then she fell into the hands of many robbers. And the wanton
> creatures passed her from one to another and [...defiled] her.Some
> made use of her by force, while others did so by seducing her with
a
> gift. In short, they defiled her, and she [...lost] her virginity.
> And in her body she prostituted herself and gave herself to one and
> all, considering each one she was about to embrace to be her
husband"
>
> Mary Magdelene is a symbol for the fallen Sophia. She's the one the
> descending Christ comes to save.
> Instead, it was assumed the motivation was to belittle her because
of
> the misogyny of a patriarchal system. Which I'm not saying wasn't a
> motivation, but there's another side to this. The ABC special
> interviewed several religious experts including Pagels and no one
> brought up the alternative explanation.



The only True explanation.

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pneumen_borealis <no_reply@y...>
wrote:

PMCV:
> > And yet, it is generally accepted amongst academecians that the
> > Gospel of Mark has been heavily edited, both adding and removing
> > sections. The "Biblical" version of Jesus' saying concerning
seeking
> > and finding leaves out some pretty key elements when compared to
> > Thomas, and Dr Pagels (whom I only point out because you seem to
> > trust her), in her latest book, dedicates a great deal of
attention
> > to how diametrically opposed John and Thomas' understanding of
Jesus
> > is. The seeming subtle difference in his sayings have such
profound
> > implications that she considers John to have been written for the
> > purpose of gaining political (Church politics.. not secular
> > government) ground over Thomas.
> >

Pneumen:
> Well, I haven't gotten to this part yet, so it would be prudent for
me
> to wait until I got to it before commenting. But I'll dive in
anyway.
>
> I think I know the parts that you are refering to, though. I
rememeber
> one part from John that is very adamant about Jesus having been a
real
> person, something Thomas stressed less. It puzzled me when I first
> read it, but given the context of a debate between Thomas followers
> and John followers, it makes a lot of sense.
>
> More to the point though, the fact that a particular Gospel was
> heavily edited does not mean it was falsified. It might just as
easily
> mean that dubious elements were deleted.
>
> I should also point out, that while there was considerable debate
over
> what Jesus meant by "finding and seeking", there is none about
whether
> he said it or that these words were important.
>
> Lastly, I would not refer to these differences as "political". To
me,
> political would mean that positions are adopted for the sake of
> winning power and influence. These differences appear to be
> theological, which one would expect in a community as far-flung and
> diverse as the early Christian one.
>
> I find it an interesting idea, though, that the Gospels were in
fact a
> result of a theological dialogue between various schools of thought
> within the Christian community, and that these schools appear to
trace
> their lineage to specific apostles. Studying the interactions
between
> these schools appears to be what Pagels is doing. It sems a very
> constructive and reasonable way  of approaching the Gospels.


But Pneumen, this is very possibly about "winning power and
influence" through alleged words of Jesus, not merely theological
debates, according to Elaine Pagels.  I had agreed with PMCV's
comments about Pagels's statements showing Jesus's sayings written by
John for the purpose of gaining political ground.  Even if one does
not agree with Pagels's interpretation, it is at least worth taking
into consideration in light of the blatant divergence of this
portrayal of Thomas from the synoptic accounts.

Let me be more specific.  When you get to Chapter 2 of _Beyond
Belief_, pages 69 through 72 describe John's version of Thomas, "the
doubter," different from Matthew, Mark, and Luke versions.  And,
these differences are demonstrated directly through Jesus's words.

Quote:

"Mark, Matthew, and Luke mention Thomas only as one of `the twelve.'
John singles him out as `the doubter' -- the one who failed to
understand who Jesus is, or what he is saying, and rejected the
testimony of the other disciples.  John then tells how the risen
Jesus personally appeared to Thomas in order to rebuke him, and
brought him to his knees.  From this we might conclude, as most
Christians have for nearly two millennia, that Thomas was a
particularly obtuse and faithless disciple -- though many of John's
Christian contemporaries revered Thomas as an extraordinary apostle,
entrusted with Jesus' `secret words.'  The scholar Gregory Riley
suggests that John portrays Thomas this way for the practical -- and
polemical purpose -- of deprecating Thomas Christians and their
teaching.  According to John, Jesus praises those `who have not seen,
and yet believed' without demanding proof, and rebukes Thomas
as `faithless' because he seeks to verify the truth from his own
experience.

"John offers three anecdotes that impose upon Thomas the image --
Doubting Thomas! --    he will have ever afterward in the minds of
most Christians..."

Pages 70-71 recounts these anecdotes.  Then when Jesus reappears
after his crucifixion to the disciples, he appears to only ten in
John's version, unlike the other gospels, which have eleven in
attendance (all but Judas Iscariot).

Continuing ~
"The implication of the story is clear:  Thomas, having missed this
meeting, is not an apostle, has not received the holy spirit, and
lacks the power to forgive sins, which the others received directly
from the risen Christ.  Furthermore, when they tell Thomas about
their encounter with Jesus, he answers in the words that mark him
forever -- in John's -- characterization as Doubting Thomas:  `Unless
I see the mark of the nails in his hand, and put my finger in the
mark of the nails, and my hand in his side, _I will not believe_.' A
week later, the risen Jesus reappears and, in this climactic scene,
John's Jesus rebukes Thomas for lacking faith and tells him to
believe:  _ `Do not be faithless, but believe.'_  Finally Thomas,
overwhelmed, capitulates and stammers out the confession, `My Lord
and my God!'

"For John, this scene is the coup de grace:  finally Thomas
understands, and Jesus warns the rest of the chastened
disciples:  `Have you believed because you have seen?  Blessed are
those who have not seen, and yet believe.'  Thus John warns all his
readers that they _must_ believe what they cannot verify for
themselves -- namely, the gospel message to which he declares himself
a witness -- or face God's wrath.  John may have felt some
satisfaction writing this scene; for here he shows Thomas giving up
his search for experiential truth -- his `unbelief'-- to confess what
John sees as the truth of his gospel:  the message would not be lost
on Thomas Christians."

Pneumen, regardless of whether one considers Pagels analysis here to
have merit, we have an example of the crux of Irenaeus's beef about
whom he views as "heretics."  How dare these people trust their own
experience and not have faith in what he considers to be "right
thinking," the right theology?  I submit that the issue isn't about
having faith.  We all have faith and there will always be a certain
element of subjectivity involved.  It comes down to the *kind* of
faith.

There is most definitely a difference between having faith in one's
own experience vs. blindly trusting or being hammered into believing
the faith of someone *else's* experience or even blind belief or even
eisegesis.


Cari