Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Gnosticism vs. Orthodoxy/ Sethians

Expand Messages
  • Mike Leavitt
    Hello pmcvflag ... Just one, the early Valentinians were in the church, the Sethians were not. Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998@lafn.org
    Message 1 of 20 , Dec 9, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello pmcvflag

      On 12/10/04, you wrote:


      > I would like to see what people think of the mythological structure
      > itself. Are there reasons for the severe dramtic difference we see
      > between the Valentinian and Sethian outlines? I ahve often dealt
      > with this as a literary hermeneutic point, but I also brought up the
      > question as to just how literal vs literary this should be
      > understood. Why, then, with the Valentinian and Sethian cosmology
      > being essentially related, is the emphasis so strikingly different?

      Just one, the early Valentinians were in the church, the Sethians were
      not.

      Regards
      --
      Mike Leavitt ac998@...
    • pmcvflag
      Hey Betty, well I guess I need to get over and read Turner s pages too. I know he has some books on the subject of the specific relationship between Platonism
      Message 2 of 20 , Dec 9, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Hey Betty, well I guess I need to get over and read Turner's pages
        too. I know he has some books on the subject of the specific
        relationship between Platonism and Sethiansim, perhaps I'll try to
        pick one of those up at some point.

        Unfortunately, some of the books I am more familiar with, such as
        Pearson's "Gnosticism, Judasim, and Egyptian Christianity" are not
        in print and quite hard to find I guess.

        It seems to me from this short bit I have read, that Dr Turner
        postulates a later origin for Sethianism, but not so late as some
        believe.

        In looking at this part of Turner's outline....

        "So far as I can see, most of the Sethian documents cited above
        originated in the period 100-250 C.E. They seem to derive their
        content from five basic complexes of doctrines:(1)a fund of
        Hellenistic- Jewish speculation on the figure of Sophia, the divine
        wisdom;(2)midrashic interpretation of Genesis 1-6 together with
        assorted motifs from Jewish scripture and exegesis;(3)a doctine and
        practice of baptism;(4)the developing Christology of the early
        church; and(5)a religiously oriented Neopythagorean and Middle
        Platonic philosophical tradition of ontological and theological
        speculation."

        .... I was thinking that it would be interesting to deal a bit more
        specifically with the influences. While I don't think anyone would
        debate these influences (though other influences could possibly be
        added), I am wondering if there is any significance to the ordering.

        I found it interesting that the thing you point out as a difference
        in the notion of "Gnosis" between the Valentinians and the Sethians
        very directly implies that at least this one particular motif is
        more directly related to the Platonic schools on the Sethian side,
        and considering the continued degeneration of the Academies this
        alone could give us cause to speculate on what order those
        influences should be stated.

        To be honest though, I am not completely convinced that this
        destinction is necessarily accurate. Not to say I disagree either,
        but it does seem to be that while the Valentinian texts do seem to
        express the notion a bit more vaguely, they still attach it to the
        ritual system and the cosmology that is implied in the system. And
        remember, most of the Valentinian texts are also vague in dealing
        with the cosmology, but we know it was there all the same. In other
        words, I am not sure that this tendancy to be a bit less explicit
        may not have more implications concerning the textual purpose (and
        the "taste" of the sect) rather than the specifics of belief.

        Something that threw me a little, is the way Dr Turner mentions the
        Valentinian developement so obliquely that it almost seems to imply
        that these thoughts popped up on thier own in both sects. While he
        does mention sect interaction, I would wonder if he would list the
        same influences, in the same order, for both sects.

        One thought I have had is, the expression is Sethianism is so
        dramatic, and on the surface it is hard to see interaction between
        some of these Gnostic sects, as well as Neopythagorian and
        Hermeticism. When I look at the early Hermetic texts, I see
        something very easily in line with Valentinian thought.... the
        Demiurge is not evil, just a tool.... etc. Some of the
        Neopythagorian thought, on the other hand, seems to me to be more
        inline with the Sethians. Still, I can see the interacction between
        all of these groups as more intuitively obvious than the interaction
        between the Sethians and Valentinians. And yet it did seem to
        happen. SO, what does this imply?

        I would like to see what people think of the mythological structure
        itself. Are there reasons for the severe dramtic difference we see
        between the Valentinian and Sethian outlines? I ahve often dealt
        with this as a literary hermeneutic point, but I also brought up the
        question as to just how literal vs literary this should be
        understood. Why, then, with the Valentinian and Sethian cosmology
        being essentially related, is the emphasis so strikingly different?

        Thoughts?

        PMCV
      • lady_caritas
        ... times, ... first ... a ... suprise. ... period ... pricipally ... sense ... mentioned. ... adoption ... a ... the ... Betty, you speak of the idea of
        Message 3 of 20 , Dec 10, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "eyeambetty" <eyeambetty@y...>
          wrote:

          > now, if that isn't enough to make your head spin, much later in the
          > article the author is more specific in describing the contrast
          > between Christianity and Sethianism, then mentions just where
          > Valentinus is, in proximity to Christianity.
          >
          > "For Christianity, the period of Isreal was one only of preparation
          > for the advent of salvation in Christ, while for the Sethians,
          > salvation had been in principle already achieved in primordial
          times,
          > with the raising of Seth and his seed into the Aeons. Thus the
          first
          > and second descents of the redeemer had actually already performed
          > the fundamental work of salvation in primordial times and left
          > witnesses to it on inscribed steles and in books. The third descent
          > of the redeemer is therefore only to remind the earthly Sethians of
          > what had been accomplished for them in the past, and to grant them
          a
          > means of realizing this in the present through the baptismal ascent
          > ritual.
          > That this third descent of the redeemer is identified with the
          > preexistent Christ who brings salvation as gnosis rather that
          > salvation through his death on the cross should occasion no
          suprise.
          > There were tendencies toward such views in Johannine Christian
          > circles as well. One should bear in mind that also during this
          period
          > (140-160)Valentinus likewise developed the notion of a pneumatic
          > Christ coming to waken the sleeping spirit in humankind, a notion
          > which lies at the core of his system. Valentinus and his sucessors
          > made Christ the focus of their system and thus were allied
          pricipally
          > with Christianity.'rite Sethians, however, seemed to find their
          sense
          > of uniqueness in opposition to the church on grounds just
          mentioned.
          > Since various groups were not isolated from one another but freely
          > made use of texts and ideas borrowed from other groups, the
          adoption
          > of Christ into their system was only natural, but did not
          > fundamentally change its basically non-Christian nature and inner
          > cohesion."
          >
          > it's seems then, that fundementally, the Sethians and Valentinians
          > idea of gnosis would logically differ? for Valentinians, Gnosis is
          a
          > more vague notion of "knowledge" that one cultivates within, with
          the
          > potential of salvation. while the Sethians, salvation has already
          > occured in primordial times, and Gnosis is merely remembering one's
          > spiritual past, inferred by a Heavenly counterpart through the
          > practice of the baptismal ascent ritual.


          Betty, you speak of the "idea" of Gnosis. Ideas may have differed
          due to differing environments and cultural influences. There is
          certainly that element, and yet I feel that this mental aspect, the
          intellectual realization, was part of a larger common
          cognitional/pneumatic _experience_ (not just emotional or magical or
          mystical or rational) from whence came an abundance of differing
          expressions, which in themselves changed in the first few centuries
          as explained by John D. Turner in his article.

          I'm reminded of "An Interview with Gilles Quispel" by Christopher
          Farmer (p. 27-29) in the first issue _Gnosis Magazine_, (Fall/Winter
          1985).
          From the interview:
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          Farmer: I liked what you once said in an article about the Nag
          Hammadi discovery, that whether or not these writings are true or not
          there is certainly a sincere and authentic expression being
          manifested in them.

          Quispel: Yes, and that's what Jung once said to me. He said, "I
          don't like the Neoplatonists, mainly because you don't find there so
          much an experience but more of a rationalization of the experience,
          but with the Gnostics you have the experience, and the proof that it
          is all personal experience is that these systems are so different
          from each other." I think that is a very valid observation from that
          old fox.
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Well, perhaps it is personal, but there is a cultural as well as a
          personality component that could very well affect individual likes,
          dislikes, and differences in general. I do agree with Jung's
          observation about "a sincere and authentic expression." This could
          very well stem from an origin of experience that transcends
          nature/nurture considerations. In spite of Jung's observation about
          different systems, the Neoplatonists and Valentinians and Sethians
          had plenty in common. Their griping at each other was often about
          emphasis and details. So human they were. The rationals didn't like
          all the ecstatic incantations of others, etc. Humans are so
          complex. That is why I appreciate what often seems like the
          ridiculous intricacy of Gnostic cosmologies. Some things these
          Gnostic groups did share were emanation systems from an unknown
          source and an interest in cosmogony.

          I think remembrance through an inner awakening was important for all
          Gnostics, whether with the help of one or three descents of a
          redeemer. As Mike pointed out, the Valentinians seemed to have a
          more direct connection with a burgeoning Christianity than others.
          Remembrance was the key, though, for Valentinians and Sethians
          alike,... awakening "the sleeping spirit in humankind."

          Regardless of when a salvation "in principle" had been achieved for
          these groups, the inner realization wasn't always considered apparent
          without the aid of ritual or an initiatory process, in some cases.
          Various rituals were used and sometimes were even discarded by
          various sects. I would imagine that Sethian and Valentinian groups
          were comprised of members at various stages in the process of Gnosis,
          just as we find today. Hence, the amount of emphasis on sacramental
          aspects would vary.

          IOW, to end my rambling here, there seemed to be a common emphasis on
          a pneumatic remembrance, an awakening from ignorance common to these
          groups, that was still apparent in spite of varying expressions,
          cosmological details, and ritual emphasis in attaining Gnosis.


          Cari
        • lady_caritas
          ... Hi, PMCV. Turner also does mention (near the end of III. Chronology and Redaction, A. Before 100 C.E.) earliest Sethian compositions that were written by
          Message 4 of 20 , Dec 10, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
            >
            > It seems to me from this short bit I have read, that Dr Turner
            > postulates a later origin for Sethianism, but not so late as some
            > believe.
            >
            > In looking at this part of Turner's outline....
            >
            > "So far as I can see, most of the Sethian documents cited above
            > originated in the period 100-250 C.E.


            Hi, PMCV. Turner also does mention (near the end of III. Chronology
            and Redaction, A. Before 100 C.E.) earliest Sethian compositions that
            were written by the end of the first century. I would copy and paste
            here, but I can't seem to access the web page right now.

            He basically shows an origin for Sethianism before 100 C.E in this
            whole section. Are there sources that postulate a much earlier
            origin?

            Cari
          • Mike Leavitt
            Hello lady_caritas ... I have heard about 100 BCE. PMCV? Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998@lafn.org
            Message 5 of 20 , Dec 10, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello lady_caritas

              On 12/10/04, you wrote:

              >
              >
              > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
              >>
              >> It seems to me from this short bit I have read, that Dr Turner
              >> postulates a later origin for Sethianism, but not so late as some
              >> believe.
              >>
              >> In looking at this part of Turner's outline....
              >>
              >> "So far as I can see, most of the Sethian documents cited above
              >> originated in the period 100-250 C.E.
              >
              >
              > Hi, PMCV. Turner also does mention (near the end of III. Chronology
              > and Redaction, A. Before 100 C.E.) earliest Sethian compositions
              > that were written by the end of the first century. I would copy and
              > paste here, but I can't seem to access the web page right now.
              >
              > He basically shows an origin for Sethianism before 100 C.E in this
              > whole section. Are there sources that postulate a much earlier
              > origin?
              >
              > Cari

              I have heard about 100 BCE. PMCV?

              Regards
              --
              Mike Leavitt ac998@...
            • Mike Leavitt
              Hello lady_caritas ... We should remember that the late NeoPlatonists like Proclus were very theurgic, if not plain magical in their emphasis. Regards -- Mike
              Message 6 of 20 , Dec 10, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Hello lady_caritas

                On 12/10/04, you wrote:

                > IOW, to end my rambling here, there seemed to be a common emphasis
                > on a pneumatic remembrance, an awakening from ignorance common to
                > these groups, that was still apparent in spite of varying
                > expressions, cosmological details, and ritual emphasis in attaining
                > Gnosis.

                We should remember that the late NeoPlatonists like Proclus were very
                theurgic, if not plain magical in their emphasis.

                Regards
                --
                Mike Leavitt ac998@...
              • lady_caritas
                ... attaining ... very ... Yes, Mike, and I don t know if Jung felt the same dislike for Proclus as he did toward other Neoplatonists. Proclus was still the
                Message 7 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                  > Hello lady_caritas
                  >
                  > On 12/10/04, you wrote:
                  >
                  > > IOW, to end my rambling here, there seemed to be a common emphasis
                  > > on a pneumatic remembrance, an awakening from ignorance common to
                  > > these groups, that was still apparent in spite of varying
                  > > expressions, cosmological details, and ritual emphasis in
                  attaining
                  > > Gnosis.
                  >
                  > We should remember that the late NeoPlatonists like Proclus were
                  very
                  > theurgic, if not plain magical in their emphasis.
                  >
                  > Regards
                  > --
                  > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...


                  Yes, Mike, and I don't know if Jung felt the same dislike for Proclus
                  as he did toward other Neoplatonists. Proclus was still the
                  philosopher, but certainly incorporated theurgy in his contemplation
                  of Forms.
                  http://www.kheper.net/topics/Neoplatonism/Proclus-theurgy.html


                  Cari
                • lady_caritas
                  ... some ... Chronology ... and ... this ... Oh, yes, Mike. I checked back to a previous post of mine (#10379) in which I quoted from the preface of Turner s
                  Message 8 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                    > Hello lady_caritas
                    >
                    > On 12/10/04, you wrote:
                    >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...>
                    wrote:
                    > >>
                    > >> It seems to me from this short bit I have read, that Dr Turner
                    > >> postulates a later origin for Sethianism, but not so late as
                    some
                    > >> believe.
                    > >>
                    > >> In looking at this part of Turner's outline....
                    > >>
                    > >> "So far as I can see, most of the Sethian documents cited above
                    > >> originated in the period 100-250 C.E.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Hi, PMCV. Turner also does mention (near the end of III.
                    Chronology
                    > > and Redaction, A. Before 100 C.E.) earliest Sethian compositions
                    > > that were written by the end of the first century. I would copy
                    and
                    > > paste here, but I can't seem to access the web page right now.
                    > >
                    > > He basically shows an origin for Sethianism before 100 C.E in
                    this
                    > > whole section. Are there sources that postulate a much earlier
                    > > origin?
                    > >
                    > > Cari
                    >
                    > I have heard about 100 BCE. PMCV?
                    >
                    > Regards
                    > --
                    > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...


                    Oh, yes, Mike. I checked back to a previous post of mine (#10379) in
                    which I quoted from the preface of Turner's article, mentioning
                    "Sethianism as a non-Christian
                    baptismal sect of the first centuries B.C.E. and C.E. which
                    considered itself primordially enlightened by the divine wisdom
                    revealed to Adam and Seth,..."

                    I don't know how much further back we could go, but even activity
                    around 100 B.C.E. would exemplify non-Christian roots.

                    Cari
                  • Mike Leavitt
                    Hello lady_caritas ... I seem to remember Iamblicus On the Mysteries, which was very theurgic too. I don t have ready access to my library (long story) or I
                    Message 9 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hello lady_caritas

                      On 12/11/04, you wrote:

                      >
                      >
                      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                      >> Hello lady_caritas
                      >>
                      >> On 12/10/04, you wrote:
                      >>
                      >> IOW, to end my rambling here, there seemed to be a common emphasis
                      >> on a pneumatic remembrance, an awakening from ignorance common to
                      >> these groups, that was still apparent in spite of varying
                      >> expressions, cosmological details, and ritual emphasis in
                      > attaining
                      >>> Gnosis.
                      >>
                      >> We should remember that the late NeoPlatonists like Proclus were
                      > very
                      >> theurgic, if not plain magical in their emphasis.
                      >>
                      >> Regards
                      >> --
                      >> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                      >
                      >
                      > Yes, Mike, and I don't know if Jung felt the same dislike for
                      > Proclus as he did toward other Neoplatonists. Proclus was still the
                      > philosopher, but certainly incorporated theurgy in his contemplation
                      > of Forms.
                      > http://www.kheper.net/topics/Neoplatonism/Proclus-theurgy.html

                      I seem to remember Iamblicus On the Mysteries, which was very theurgic
                      too. I don't have ready access to my library (long story) or I would
                      check.

                      Regards
                      --
                      Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                    • lady_caritas
                      ... emphasis ... the ... contemplation ... theurgic ... would ... You must have some amazing library, Mike. Anyway, I was able to find this online:
                      Message 10 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                        > Hello lady_caritas
                        >
                        > On 12/11/04, you wrote:
                        >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...>
                        wrote:
                        > >> Hello lady_caritas
                        > >>
                        > >> On 12/10/04, you wrote:
                        > >>
                        > >> IOW, to end my rambling here, there seemed to be a common
                        emphasis
                        > >> on a pneumatic remembrance, an awakening from ignorance common to
                        > >> these groups, that was still apparent in spite of varying
                        > >> expressions, cosmological details, and ritual emphasis in
                        > > attaining
                        > >>> Gnosis.
                        > >>
                        > >> We should remember that the late NeoPlatonists like Proclus were
                        > > very
                        > >> theurgic, if not plain magical in their emphasis.
                        > >>
                        > >> Regards
                        > >> --
                        > >> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Yes, Mike, and I don't know if Jung felt the same dislike for
                        > > Proclus as he did toward other Neoplatonists. Proclus was still
                        the
                        > > philosopher, but certainly incorporated theurgy in his
                        contemplation
                        > > of Forms.
                        > > http://www.kheper.net/topics/Neoplatonism/Proclus-theurgy.html
                        >
                        > I seem to remember Iamblicus On the Mysteries, which was very
                        theurgic
                        > too. I don't have ready access to my library (long story) or I
                        would
                        > check.
                        >
                        > Regards
                        > --
                        > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...


                        You must have some amazing library, Mike. Anyway, I was able to find
                        this online:
                        http://www.esotericarchives.com/oracle/iambl_th.htm


                        Cari
                      • Mike Leavitt
                        Hello lady_caritas ... This appears to be the work in question. The style makes it a bit hard to read, I m afraid. Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998@lafn.org
                        Message 11 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hello lady_caritas

                          On 12/11/04, you wrote:

                          >
                          >
                          > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                          >> Hello lady_caritas
                          >>
                          >> On 12/11/04, you wrote:
                          >>
                          >>>
                          >>>
                          >>> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...>
                          > wrote:
                          >>>> Hello lady_caritas
                          >>>>
                          >>>> On 12/10/04, you wrote:
                          >>>>
                          >>>> IOW, to end my rambling here, there seemed to be a common
                          > emphasis
                          >> >> on a pneumatic remembrance, an awakening from ignorance common
                          >> >> to these groups, that was still apparent in spite of varying
                          >> >> expressions, cosmological details, and ritual emphasis in
                          >>> attaining
                          >>>>> Gnosis.
                          >> >>
                          >> >> We should remember that the late NeoPlatonists like Proclus were
                          >>> very
                          >>>> theurgic, if not plain magical in their emphasis.
                          >>>>
                          >>>> Regards
                          >>>> --
                          >>>> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                          >>>
                          >>>
                          >>> Yes, Mike, and I don't know if Jung felt the same dislike for
                          >>> Proclus as he did toward other Neoplatonists. Proclus was still
                          > the
                          >>> philosopher, but certainly incorporated theurgy in his
                          > contemplation
                          >>> of Forms.
                          >>> http://www.kheper.net/topics/Neoplatonism/Proclus-theurgy.html
                          >>
                          >> I seem to remember Iamblicus On the Mysteries, which was very
                          > theurgic
                          >> too. I don't have ready access to my library (long story) or I
                          > would
                          >> check.
                          >>
                          >> Regards
                          >> --
                          >> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                          >
                          >
                          > You must have some amazing library, Mike. Anyway, I was able to find
                          > this online:
                          > http://www.esotericarchives.com/oracle/iambl_th.htm

                          This appears to be the work in question. The style makes it a bit
                          hard to read, I'm afraid.

                          Regards
                          --
                          Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                        • pmcvflag
                          In my memory I seem to recall that Pearson pushes back even farther, a little into the second century B.C.. To be honest though, I can t recall what evidence
                          Message 12 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In my memory I seem to recall that Pearson pushes back even farther,
                            a little into the second century B.C.. To be honest though, I can't
                            recall what evidence he presents for that.... and I can't think of
                            any myself. I also was just noticing that Turner and Pearson seem to
                            have many parallel studies, such as the specific connection between
                            Gnosticism and Platonism. From what I am reading they seem very much
                            in agrement. Perhaps Turner is a good replacement (and maybe a bit
                            updated) for the fact that Pearson seems pretty hard to find. It
                            would be helpful to have more books on this perticular subject to be
                            able to recomend to people. Expect my review within a year ;) *lol*

                            PMCV

                            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...>
                            wrote:
                            >
                            > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...>
                            wrote:
                            > > Hello lady_caritas
                            > >
                            > > On 12/10/04, you wrote:
                            > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...>
                            > wrote:
                            > > >>
                            > > >> It seems to me from this short bit I have read, that Dr
                            Turner
                            > > >> postulates a later origin for Sethianism, but not so late as
                            > some
                            > > >> believe.
                            > > >>
                            > > >> In looking at this part of Turner's outline....
                            > > >>
                            > > >> "So far as I can see, most of the Sethian documents cited
                            above
                            > > >> originated in the period 100-250 C.E.
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > Hi, PMCV. Turner also does mention (near the end of III.
                            > Chronology
                            > > > and Redaction, A. Before 100 C.E.) earliest Sethian
                            compositions
                            > > > that were written by the end of the first century. I would
                            copy
                            > and
                            > > > paste here, but I can't seem to access the web page right now.
                            > > >
                            > > > He basically shows an origin for Sethianism before 100 C.E in
                            > this
                            > > > whole section. Are there sources that postulate a much
                            earlier
                            > > > origin?
                            > > >
                            > > > Cari
                            > >
                            > > I have heard about 100 BCE. PMCV?
                            > >
                            > > Regards
                            > > --
                            > > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                            >
                            >
                            > Oh, yes, Mike. I checked back to a previous post of mine (#10379)
                            in
                            > which I quoted from the preface of Turner's article, mentioning
                            > "Sethianism as a non-Christian
                            > baptismal sect of the first centuries B.C.E. and C.E. which
                            > considered itself primordially enlightened by the divine wisdom
                            > revealed to Adam and Seth,..."
                            >
                            > I don't know how much further back we could go, but even activity
                            > around 100 B.C.E. would exemplify non-Christian roots.
                            >
                            > Cari
                          • pmcvflag
                            Hey Mike... ... Sethians were not.
                            Message 13 of 20 , Dec 11, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hey Mike...

                              >>>"Just one, the early Valentinians were in the church, the
                              Sethians were not."<<<

                              Perhaps, but what about the synagogue? Also, I am not so sure that
                              the Christinized "Sethian" tracts were not originally used in the
                              church. On the other hand, they are hard to reconcile with what we
                              know of the earliest Christian texts. I think this question is very
                              difficult to be positive about, either way.

                              PMCV
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.