- Sep 29, 2003Hello pmcvflag
On 29-Sep-03, you wrote:
> Well, Magusadeptus, you may need to clarify for us. I have heard the
> name applied to Bogimils, but I don't get the impression that this
> is what you are talking about. I know that Epihpanius talks about
> two different groups by that name (which he tries to draw together
> in some way I can't remember... but that sounds typical), but I
> guess neither of those groups are who you are talking about.
> In any event, I am aware of no medieval groups that I would say are
> technically "Gnostic" (with the possible exception of the Mandaeans,
> but the jury is still out on that one), and I am really not familiar
> with any Messalians besides the several different groups I already
> mentioned. Maybe some of the other founders here know something, or
> one of our many very knowledgeable members can help.
If he is referring to the Bogomils, they are more Manachean, and while
they may be our second cousins, they are not really gnostics. The
Bogomils were involved in the founding of the Cathars, again our
second cousins, with I have the utmost sympathy, but who are again
not really gnostics. They all outdo the gnostics with their absolute
dualism, probably due to Mani's having been influenced by both
gnosticism and Zoroastrianism.
Mike Leavitt ac998@...
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>